The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That the Apostles never submitted to Peter. No doubt that St Peter had a special place among the Apostles, no one doubts that (maybe non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians would) it to say that they submitted to him?

ZP
 
I was doing some reading, Catholic Answers: 20 Answers on the Papacy; i suggest to look in the Book of Acts. There, Saint Peter is shown to be the Head of the Church, heading meetings and deciding dogmatic teaching at the Council of Jerusalem. As well as casting out the first heretic.

From what I remember; Saint Peter wasn’t a heavy handed autocrat. He led the Apostles and the Early Church with a gentle shepherd’s hand. He was the governor of the Church, with special authority from Christ; and the head of the college of bishops and the Magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
I was doing some reading, Catholic Answers: 20 Answers on the Papacy; i suggest to look in the Book of Acts.
Click to expand...
I’ve read it.
Michael16 said:
There, Saint Peter is shown to be the Head of the Church, heading meetings and deciding dogmatic teaching at the Council of Jerusalem. As well as casting out the first heretic.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t disagree, St Peter had a special position among the Apostles. The Chieti document, which many will say is not a magisterial document (even though the Catholic delegation is headed by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, who is the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer, and the statement is vetted by the Pope and the Praefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) points out to what primacy looked like in the early Church.

ZP
 
Okay, I’m intrigued @ziapueblo. Could you post a link or help me understand?
 
Last edited:
Thank you z…here is some excerpts from it:

"Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order ( taxis ) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour ( presbeia tes times ), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition.(11)
  1. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html
 
Last edited:
How is that anachronistic, @mcq72?

We see it in the historical record.

What I see as anachronistic lens sight is the Protestant claim against papal authority.

Prior to Luther’s attack on papal authority, the papal office was unquestioned for 1,500 years in the West.

From Luther onward, Protestants have been trying to disprove the clear Scriptural grounds for papal authority from Scripture itself.

Which, when you see the the text, free of Protestant lenses; it’s as clear as a bell.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
How is that anachronistic, @mcq72?
N
We see it in the historical record.
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you, you do, others do not.

Although we agree to a point on Peter having lead role, we disagree on how that was just played out, on what that means.

Many see the papacy as a historic development. For example your term of “college of bishops” is not an apostolic term or event but came to be developed centuries later (not sure when). Same with magisterium and governor.
 
I’m not understanding you.

Let me help clarify.

Saint Peter was given by Jesus what Jesus gave him. He passed it down to Linus, Linus passed it down and so on.

How’s this not Apostolic based and merely a historical development?
 
Michael16 said:
Prior to Luther’s attack on papal authority, the papal office was unquestioned for 1,500 years in the West.
Click to expand...
Yes, many Catholics claim this. I disagree that the entire Christian church saw the pope as the only vicar of Christ , of universal jurisdiction over entire world church until Luther., as if the eastern church did not exist and no father made a single objection ever or any councils implications.
 
Last edited:
It’s not a claim. It’s a fact. The Orthodox see the bishop of Rome as first among the bishops. Their misunderstanding is that he’s only primus inter pares.

The rest is Protestant revisionism.

As for any father making an objection: I see no evidence that any council, clergy or bishop ever questioned papal authority prior to the 16th century; unless he was talking about the antipopes.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
How’s this not Apostolic based and merely a historical development?
Click to expand...
Iranaeus denotes a different story.

When is the first time anyone says the bishop of Rome is now automatically in charge of the whole church?

Again, what Linus and Clement were, is anachronistically attributed by what developed later (some say episcopal monarchy).
 
Last edited:
How can you say that?

What was passed on was legitimately passed on. Essentially what I think you’re saying is that Jesus gave it to him and when he passed it on to his successor; it didn’t pass on.

As for the Magisterium; it is the teaching authority of the Church given her by Christ. It’s composed of the Pope and the bishops in submits him.

What’s the misunderstanding?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
When is the first time anyone says the bishop of Rome is now automatically in charge of the whole church?
Click to expand...
early…

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger . We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect ( Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[ A.D. 95 ]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught . I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force ( Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [ A.D. 110 ]).
 
ArchStanton said:
Clement of Rome
Click to expand...
This was from by the presbytery of the Roman churches, possibly penned by Clement, (as per another source)… it is one church to another, after Rome was asked for support by the righteous in Corinth church. There is no mention of chair of Peter …

Understand however the Catholic inference on the matter. Those who say papacy developed over time cite this as a step towards todays eventual understsnding.
 
mcq72 said:
There is no mention of chair of Peter …
Click to expand...
Cyprian

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 " ( Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [ A.D. 252 ]).
 
Last edited:
Cyprian appears to have changed his tune when he Pope Stephen disagreed with him about baptism by heretics.
You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics,…
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.
Click to expand...
Cyprian (Seventh Council of Carthage)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

You can also look at the correspondence between him and other bishops about the baptism by heretics and Stephen.

Epistle 71
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050671.htm

Epistle 72
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050672.htm

Epistle 73
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

Epistle 74
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm

All of this took place after the date of the letter you quoted.
I have to wonder what would have happened to Cyprian under the papacy of Leo X.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top