The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Why would heretics be considering THAT?

Dont know , but that is what Cyprian wrote, per post 602

“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]****”

Corinth went to Rome because Corinth couldn’t solve their own problem, nor could any of the other Churches,… or they (Corinth) would have gone that direction… right?

The former is correct, the latter is musings about Rome’s authority around 100AD…lol, even in secular matters, “all roads led to Rome”.

It’s already known throughout the Church, that the Church of Rome, has universal authority.

Again, an opinion, a musing, but not in the writings at 100AD

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Why would heretics be considering THAT?

Dont know , but that is what Cyprian wrote, per post 602

“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]****”

However, In the case we were talking about, Corinth, was a case almost 200 yrs earlier, the request from Corinth to Clement, in Rome, was to solve sedition between the bishops in Corinth.

AND

Corinth went to Rome because Corinth couldn’t solve their own problem, nor could any of the other Churches,… or they (Corinth) would have gone that direction… right?

mcq72:

The former is correct, the latter is musings about Rome’s authority around 100AD…lol, even in secular matters, “all roads led to Rome”.

Since

Peter’s last see was in Rome, and his authority was to continue in his successors,

How so one asks?

mcq72:

Again, an opinion, a musing, but not in the writings at 100AD

Re: before 100 a.d.

Ignatius of Antioch, was ordained bishop, i n ~69 a.d. by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of John the apostle. He wrote 6 letters to the Catholic Church in 6 locations. Contemporaries of Ignatius, from the 1st century, as in prior to the yr 100, would be Clement of Rome who died ~95 a.d., and Polycarp of Smyrna. All 3 of these ECF’s were taught by the apostles.

AND

Ignatius writes in His opening statement to the Church of Rome.

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness”.

In no other writing of Ignatius does he name another Church that has the presidency.
Irenaeus said something similar as Ignatius. We talked about this before. Irenaeus said, “all must agree with the Church of Rome on account of it’s preeminent authority” and THAT as Irenaeus says, comes down from Peter and Paul to his day form the bishops of Rome in succession from Peter. As Ignatius said, The Church that holds the presidency

seems to be agreement on this between Ignatius and Irenaeus.

 

[mcq72]

However, In the case we were talking about, Corinth,

Are they not one in the same case? Was cyprian writi ng historically of clement letter and case?

Peter’s last see was in Rome, and his authority was to continue in his successors,

And Pauls last see, who shepherded Corinth.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

However, In the case we were talking about, Corinth,

Are they not one in the same case? Was cyprian writi ng historically of clement letter and case?

Peter’s last see was in Rome, and his authority was to continue in his successors,

And Pauls last see, who shepherded Corinth.

Paul was not Peter.

 

[mcq72]

seems to be agreement on this between Ignatius and Irenaeus.

Yes, they do. Again, in honor and love but of jurisdiction? Yes, a vicar of Peter, but was Peter above apostles or was he at the center?

As one views Peter one views bishop of Rome, and not vice versa.

Peter was first amongst equals, and thus how Rome should be looked at, relative to all bishops, even Patriarchs.

.Like Jesus, the eucharist, can be center of every church, so to at center of universal church. Jesus is at Center, not so much over. More like a circle structure, not a pyramid. Rome was seen as center of unity, honor in love, as in a circle, surrounded by all other bishops, who had equal jurisdictional power over respective churches.

Jesus said we do not have hierarchy structure of world…which is pyramidal, lording over…He is the head, but still at center, where we draw our strength as from a vine. He is our benefactor but not as “over” but from center, even within, as friend, and willing friend to His lordship.

Big difference of being at center from being over, from being a vicar of Peter, as first amongst equals, to bring vicar of Christ, and having all power and authority over all, as Christ did ( first declared by pope in 9 th century…another precursor to great schism… a title refused by Gregory 1st).

Some paraphrasing drawn from “A Service of Love” by McPartian.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

seems to be agreement on this between Ignatius and Irenaeus.

Yes, they do. Again, in honor and love but of jurisdiction? Yes, a vicar of Peter, but was Peter above apostles or was he at the center?

I’ve posted many times, the Greek definitions to the words referring to Peter’s office that Jesus established in Peter ergo Peter’s successors, because the Church is to continue AFTER all the apostles are gone.

mcq72:

As one views Peter one views bishop of Rome, and not vice versa.

Peter was first amongst equals, and thus how Rome should be looked at, relative to all bishops, even Patriarchs.

Peter is NOT 1st among equals. That is a nonsense term.

mcq72:

.Like Jesus, the eucharist, can be center of every church, so to at center of universal church. Jesus is at Center, not so much over. More like a circle structure, not a pyramid. Rome was seen as center of unity, honor in love, as in a circle, surrounded by all other bishops, who had equal jurisdictional power over respective churches.

That is NOT the language that was used in the establishment of Jesus Church that Jesus established. ONE person received the keys to the kingdom. That was Peter. Power of the Keys | Catholic Answers

mcq72:

Jesus said we do not have hierarchy structure of world…which is pyramidal, lording over…He is the head, but still at center, where we draw our strength as from a vine.
Big difference of being at center He is our benefactor but not as “over” but from center, even within, as friend, and willing friend to His lordship.

Big difference of being at center from being over, from being a vicar of Peter, as first amongst equals, to bring vicar of Christ, and having all power and authority over all, as Christ did ( first declared by pope in 9 th century…another precursor to great schism… a title refused by Gregory 1st).

Some paraphrasing drawn from “A Service of Love” by McPartian.

Again,

Words used in describing the authority Peter was given.

Lk 22:26 talks about the one who will be the following
ἡγέομαι

please open the link. The only apostle Jesus identifies by name, in the example of Lk 22 is Simon Peter.
here’s the description of Peter
1. to lead, to go before; . to rule, command; to have authority over: in the present participle ἡγούμενος, a prince, of regal power (Ezekiel 43:7 for מֶלֶך; Sir. 17:17), Matthew 2:6; a (royal) governor, viceroy, Acts 7:10; chief

That describes a position that one holds. It’s not plural, it’s singular.

Then after the resurrection

Jesus to Peter,

Jn 21:16, ποιμαίνω shepherd, tend, rule, govern, my sheep

 

[mcq72]

I’ve posted many times, the Greek definitions to the words referring to Peter’s office that Jesus established in Peter ergo Peter’s successors, because the Church is to continue AFTER all the apostles are gone.

Yes you have thank you.Yet many definitions are just that, as in plural meanings, depending on context. So, I feel you have done two things. First, apply definition that i feel are beyond context, and secondly, fail to apply definition to apostles, or shared by apostles.

Peter is NOT 1st among equals. That is a nonsense term.

Well, if i recall correctly, a term used by some theologians and bishops way before Luther.

Indeed non sense but only because two factions ( east/ west) couldn’t submit one to another on the matter.

That is NOT the language that was used in the establishment of Jesus Church that Jesus established. ONE person received the keys to the kingdom. That was Peter.

Again i would use same response above to your “definitions”. I feel you skew the “key” meaning,and exclusify it apart from other apostles functioning.

Context of Acts does not show such pyramidal functioning. It is in eyes of beholder, one finding what they seek.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Like this photo…same one reality can be seen both ways, depending on one’s perspective.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’ve posted many times, the Greek definitions to the words referring to Peter’s office that Jesus established in Peter ergo Peter’s successors, because the Church is to continue AFTER all the apostles are gone.

Yes you have thank you.Yet many definitions are just that, as in plural meanings, depending on context.

The context in the case I was referring to Peter, I was clear when the apostles were present and Jesus changed from plural to singular tense when singling out Peter.

mcq72:

So, I feel you have done two things. First, apply definition that i fell are beyond context, and secondly, fail to apply definition to apistkes, or shared by apostles.

Show the quote(s)

Peter is NOT 1st among equals. That is a nonsense term.

mcq72:

Well, if i recall correctly, a term used by some theologians and bishops way before Luther.

Indeed non sense but only because two factions ( east/ west) couldn’t submit one to another.

Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Card Ratzinger, under Pope JPII, wrote about the history behind the phrase 1st among equals.

Pope NOT 1st among equals

then Card Ratzinger addressed this (approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. )

“The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.”
From:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

ONE person received the keys to the kingdom. That was Peter.

mcq72:

I feel you skew the key meaning and exclusify apart from other apostles functioning.

Reference?

 

[mcq72]

Lk 22:26 talks about the one who will be the following
ἡγέομαι

please open the link. The only apostle Jesus identifies by name, in the example of Lk 22 is Simon Peter.
here’s the description of Peter

1. to lead, to go before; . to rule, command; to have authority ove

I feel Mickey Mantle was the greatest player of the 61 yankees, a very inspiring leader, but he was not captain or “chief”.

Again you take every meaning of definition, and apply to Peter, going beyond meaning of to lead, go before but also ad infinitum any other meaning as to rule ( lord) over.

 

[steve-b]

Lk 22:26 talks about the one who will be the following
ἡγέομαι

please open the link. The only apostle Jesus identifies by name, in the example of Lk 22 is Simon Peter.
here’s the description of Peter

1. to lead, to go before; . to rule, command; to have authority ove

mcq72:

I feel Mickey Mantle was the greatest player of the 61 yankees, but he was not captain or chief.

Again you take every meaning of definition, and apply to Peter, going beyond meaning of to lead, go before but also ad infinitum any other meaning as to rule ( lord) over.

To reduce this into a baseball example, is really lowering the bar.

 

[mcq72]

To reduce this into a baseball example, is really lowering the bar.

Indeed, as is to insinuate leading is ruling over.

 

[PickyPicky]

Peter is NOT 1st among equals. That is a nonsense term.

I have no standing in a discussion about Peter’s rôle but I must, yet again, protest at the statement that First Among Equals is a nonsense term.

It aptly describes the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch, of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion, the Chief Justice of the United States, and the chair of almost every local society, group, and voluntary organisation,

You may find the rôle inadequate for the Bishop of Rome, but it certainly is not “a nonsense term”.

 

[Bill6]

Greetings in Christ, anyone who is validly baptized and is in the State of Grace is in Christ. Non-Catholic-Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. They are related to the Church, but sadly they aren’t in Full Communion with the Church. As far as I know, the Universal Church refers to the Church of which Saint Peter and his successors are heads. It refers to the One, Holy, Catholic Church our Blessed Lord Founded on Pope Saint Peter in Mathew 16. While there are many particular Churches (Roman Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church etc.) all of these Churches are Catholic because they are in Union with Saint Peter’s Successor.

Non-Catholic Christians who are ignorant of Catholic teaching through no fault of their own are brothers and sisters in Christ. They are in Christ and are imperfectly joined to the Catholic Church.

God bless and Mary keep you.

 

[mcq72]

The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.

Correct, just as the east never accepted the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ, with all authority, over every bishop and church around the world.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To reduce this into a baseball example, is really lowering the bar.

Indeed, as is to insinuate leading is ruling over.

When I quoted from the links I gave, did my name show up as the author? No

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Peter is NOT 1st among equals. That is a nonsense term.

I have no standing in a discussion about Peter’s rôle but I must, yet again, protest at the statement that First Among Equals is a nonsense term.

It aptly describes the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch, of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion, the Chief Justice of the United States, and the chair of almost every local society, group, and voluntary organisation,

You may find the rôle inadequate for the Bishop of Rome, but it certainly is not “a nonsense term”.

It’s used among the Orthodox first.

Re: “nonsense term”

I got that from an Orthodox priest back in 04, who used to post here. His explanation of that term was

"if one is first all aren’t equal, and if all are equal no one is first" Fr Ambrose ROCOR
Fr Ambrose called it a nonsense term then… And I agreed

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.

Correct, just as the east never accepted the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ, with all authority, over every bishop and church around the world.

Ya gotta be careful using the term "never" like that.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms:

(all emphasis mine)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”
(Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

IOW

The whole Church , East and West , follows that understanding

 

[mcq72]

Ya gotta be careful using the term "never" like that.

No i have to he careful using the term “eastern”, as in more explicitly eastern orthodox, which do not believe in jurisdictional prima

 

[mcq72]

The whole Church , East and West , follows that understanding

Correct, that is Catholics, but not Orthodox.

 

[mcq72]

Fr Ambrose called it a nonsense term then… And I agreed

Does he have a better explanation, or is he an Orthodox Eastern Catholic?