M
mcq72
Guest
No, He gave us, chose for us the apostles and Peter. Any successors we chose, and it shows at times.
Last edited:
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
my quote was
By Jesus design, and command, HE put one shepherd, in particular, and in succession from this one particular shepherd, till the end of time, to be in charge over all of His other shepherds in His Church on this side of eternity.
So
while Jesus is referring to the “apostles” in that quote, the apostles understood, after their argument was settled by Jesus, that Jesus made Peter the leader .
As I’ve shown previously
Lk 22: 24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves."
AND
One of the titles of the pope is "servant of the serant of God"
So
Jesus already said one of THEM is the greatest . Peter is the only one Jesus names
Jesus also said the one who is the greatest would also rule. referenced above
“rule” ἡγούμενος you see all the characteristics described for that person.
AND after the resurrection
Jesus to Peter directly, in front of the apostles
“ ποίμαινε my sheep"
as in shepherd, tend, rule, govern my sheep (present imperative active tense 2nd person singular)
One could ask
Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO
Do the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gives Peter alone, have jurisdictional restrictions (as in Peter can only shepherd, tend, rule, govern, ) certain sheep and not the entire flock of Our Lord’s? NO
adding up the traits
Peter is to
lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman.
And
by Jesus wanting [John 17:18-23] zero division in HIS plan
that should also answer the required communion of all bishops and hierarchy to be perfectly united with 1 bishop.
Gee, Sounds like Jesus describes and defends the papacy and His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
Just sayin
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
And the qualifying trait of being the “younger, being the servant, not the served at the table” ?
No where does Jesus say the keys are transferable only to the bishop of Rome, or by " bishops in majority of Italian origin, etc.
S
steve-b
Guest
When Jesus makes reference to giving the keys to Peter, what/who is He referring back to and what do the keys mean?steve-b:
And the qualifying trait of being the “younger, being the servant, not the served at the table” ?
No where does Jesus say the keys are transferable only to the bishop of Rome, or by " bishops in majority of Italian origin, etc.
For space, 2 short reads
AND
- Excerpt: (emphasis mine)
“…In the kingdom of God, it is Jesus who reigns supremely; and although he remains mystically present to us here on Earth through the Church and sacraments, he has established a prime minister to ensure right order in liturgy, morality, doctrine, and worship. The first prime minister was Peter; but Peter has been and always will be succeeded in office by other approved men until the King returns (see Acts 1:15-26.
One of the Church’s first bishops of Rome, St. Clement, affirms the dogma of apostolic succession in the first century: “They appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” ( Letter to the Corinthians 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).”
In addition
Re: that quote from Pope Clement, so you don’t have to go find it, see HERE is his letter to the Corinthians. The quote comes from ch 44
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, and even moreso, as we are all ministers, even ambassadors of His kingdom…yes, the church and its officers are guardians of His will on earth.
Jesus indeed gave the keys to Peter, with responsibilities to rest of apostles also.
Jesus indeed is chief and He did not wind the clock and then is “absent” from guiding His church. He is not dependent on papacy…He will raise leaders, even popes in early church, to meet the needs…being in succession to Peter is conditional to who is most like Peter, which has not always been the bishop of Rome…otherwise He would be a respector of persons (even offices)
Clement mentions nothing of papal office. He mentions apostolic “offices” and their appointments, successors, that “they” ( apostles) appointed in all the churches they founded. He says to follow these appointments as they are holy and righteous also ( conditional then?). The Corinthians deposed not unholy or unrighteous presbyters but they were apostolic like (holy, righteous), and as such was wrong thing to do.
As to other article, it was not clear to apostles that Peter would be greatest after he was given keys, for they would argue these things again , later on in gospel account (last supper).
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
Guys, it’s clear from Scripture that Jesus tells Saint Peter:
Upon this rock ( Addressing Saint Peter after giving him the name of Peter ) I shall build my Church. To you do I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever sins you forgive are forgiven; whatever sins you retain are retained and the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
Not an exact quote of Scripture; I’ll admit.
But, we see that:
Jesus gave authority to Saint Peter to head the Church. He gave him the keys, as his chamberlain and access to heaven; with authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins.
Thus, we see the basic role and powers of the Pope, in context with Jesus saying to Saint Peter: Feed My sheep; is that the Pope is the Head of the Church with divinely given power and authority.
That power and authority passes down through to each successor of Saint Peter.
Any other interpretation of the clear sense of what Jesus says in Scripture is just plain wrong.
As for Saint Irenaeus: I’ve read his book, Against Heresies. It’s clear that he’s addressing heresies that the Church was combatting at the time and he clearly submitted to papal authority because he was dating texts by who was bishop of Rome.
It’s the ancient custom of dating according to the reign of a monarch.
As for papal infallibility: It’s rarely invoked and when it is, it’s usually formalizing a dogma that’s already held by the sensus fidei of the Church.
Upon this rock ( Addressing Saint Peter after giving him the name of Peter ) I shall build my Church. To you do I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever sins you forgive are forgiven; whatever sins you retain are retained and the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
Not an exact quote of Scripture; I’ll admit.
But, we see that:
Jesus gave authority to Saint Peter to head the Church. He gave him the keys, as his chamberlain and access to heaven; with authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins.
Thus, we see the basic role and powers of the Pope, in context with Jesus saying to Saint Peter: Feed My sheep; is that the Pope is the Head of the Church with divinely given power and authority.
That power and authority passes down through to each successor of Saint Peter.
Any other interpretation of the clear sense of what Jesus says in Scripture is just plain wrong.
As for Saint Irenaeus: I’ve read his book, Against Heresies. It’s clear that he’s addressing heresies that the Church was combatting at the time and he clearly submitted to papal authority because he was dating texts by who was bishop of Rome.
It’s the ancient custom of dating according to the reign of a monarch.
As for papal infallibility: It’s rarely invoked and when it is, it’s usually formalizing a dogma that’s already held by the sensus fidei of the Church.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Jesus also explicitly gave that authority to all apostles before His ascension.
M
Michael16
Guest
You have to remember though: Saint Peter is the Head of the Church and the other Apostles submitted to him.
To have otherwise is to invite the obvious evils of schism and faction that inevitably arise with the absence of a strong central authority.
To have otherwise is to invite the obvious evils of schism and faction that inevitably arise with the absence of a strong central authority.
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, Iranaeus is explicit why he chose Rome’s succession of bishops (and he clearly states all churches can show apostolic succession), and it is due to the greatest apostles being there, Peter and Paul as foundation. He does not cite Peter as the “greatest”, nor papal office (or your monarchy) but folks are free to infer if they like.
Jesus does not infer that there would always be a pope, at least not explicitly.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, and as they submitted to one another, as fellow apostles, elders.
M
Michael16
Guest
Saint Paul submitted to Saint Peter.
M
Michael16
Guest
Your statement doesn’t follow. Elders don’t submit to each other. Councils cannot be supreme authority
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, in a fashion (his " bishopric" was of God also) and to James etc. No one denies that Peter was a leader, and James bishop of Jerusalem etc…
They were both “the greatest” as some testified.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, in a certain fashion they must. I think Peter said he was a fellow elder, under the chief Shepherd also.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, that was finally settled at Trent.
Otherwise we disagree. Jerusalem was a council, and it was a council decision…Peter testified, but not a authoritative rule, for he really posed a question to the others ( his testimony, his dream, indeed was from God, with signs on Cornelius’s family, and thus authoritative)
M
Michael16
Guest
You’re not understanding and I’m not understanding you.
Saint Peter was the unambiguous Head of the Church and it seems you might be agreeing with me. The problem I’m seeing with your statement is that you seem to be saying that councils, when called and presided over by the Pope; are the supreme authority with each bishop somehow “ submitting “ to each other.
That’s just a recipe for inevitable disorder, because there’s no such practical thing as “ submitting “ to each other; and Our Lord certainly didn’t intend for that when He commanded us and prayed for us to be one.
That’s not how it works, my friend.
Jesus clearly puts Saint Peter in supreme authority with the other Apostles under him. Each Apostle cannot be an independent head of his own diocesan Church. That was what happened in the Orthodox Churches.
Thus, we see the beginning of the Church hierarchy and Magisterium.
Essentially, what you have is that Popes call councils, presided over them and ratify the decisions of the council. Basically, a Church council is a conclave of Pope and the Bishops under him to hash out issues. As we saw in the Council of Jerusalem and Trent.
As for Trent: What Trent settled was that it affirmed Church doctrine and had to explicitly define justification by faith because of the Protestant misinterpretation of Romans 3:28. As well as putting into place reforms like establishing a seminary in each diocese and addressing the other problems that led to the Protestant revolution.
Saint Peter was the unambiguous Head of the Church and it seems you might be agreeing with me. The problem I’m seeing with your statement is that you seem to be saying that councils, when called and presided over by the Pope; are the supreme authority with each bishop somehow “ submitting “ to each other.
That’s just a recipe for inevitable disorder, because there’s no such practical thing as “ submitting “ to each other; and Our Lord certainly didn’t intend for that when He commanded us and prayed for us to be one.
That’s not how it works, my friend.
Jesus clearly puts Saint Peter in supreme authority with the other Apostles under him. Each Apostle cannot be an independent head of his own diocesan Church. That was what happened in the Orthodox Churches.
Thus, we see the beginning of the Church hierarchy and Magisterium.
Essentially, what you have is that Popes call councils, presided over them and ratify the decisions of the council. Basically, a Church council is a conclave of Pope and the Bishops under him to hash out issues. As we saw in the Council of Jerusalem and Trent.
As for Trent: What Trent settled was that it affirmed Church doctrine and had to explicitly define justification by faith because of the Protestant misinterpretation of Romans 3:28. As well as putting into place reforms like establishing a seminary in each diocese and addressing the other problems that led to the Protestant revolution.
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
M
Michael16
Guest
What’s your question?
Submission doesn’t mean blind lockstep obedience as Saint Paul openly rebuked Saint Peter to his face. Saint Paul called him out and Saint Peter accepted the rebuke.
As Saint Catherine of Siena said: Speak truth to power.
Submission doesn’t mean blind lockstep obedience as Saint Paul openly rebuked Saint Peter to his face. Saint Paul called him out and Saint Peter accepted the rebuke.
As Saint Catherine of Siena said: Speak truth to power.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I’m curious to know what you mean when you say the Apostles “submitted” to Peter?
ZP
ZP
M
Michael16
Guest
I’ll admit; I’ll have to research for specifics in Scripture.
Could you help me understand what you’re thinking in this?
Could you help me understand what you’re thinking in this?
- Status