Paul calls Peter the leader of The Church and even recognizes James as the leader of the Church at Jeruselum.
Where does Paul refer to Peter as " the leader of the Church"? You can’t assert that without backing it up
I’m afraid VARC that I’m going to answer 2ndGen through your responses. I need the shifting of your logic, clarity, charity and cogency to get to what he is ranting about.
I think he is refering to Galatians 2:9 (though I doubt he knows that). But then there is that pesky plural, which doesn’t quench the ultramontanists’ thirst for autocracy. Worse yet, it lists James first
before Peter. Notice his (2nd’s) slip above about James, leader of the Mother Church, even when St Peter is around (Acts 15). Maybe I should mention here St. Clement’s comment (preserved in Eusebius) that after the ascension even Peter did not dare deny St. James the preeminence, and St. James became the first Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Acts 9:20 Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 **At once **he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
He did not need Peter’s permission to preach the Gospel.
Fallacy. Non-sequitor. Just because Paul met with Peter it does not follow that he was required to do so to begin his ministry
In fact St. Paul seems to be saying just that. Galatians 1:15-7 (note verse 19).
Also, if St. Peter is so central, why didn’t he baptize St. Paul? Yet the Lord himself chooses St. Ananias (btw, his church and bapistry still exist on the Street called Straight (still called that), near on the same street as our patriarch’s cathedral.
Christian empire? Fallacy. Begging the question. You need to establish that Peter “ran the christian empire” before you use that as proof for your argument. As if he was having conference calls with the other Apostles. The other Apostles worked independantly of Peter. No one was “checking in” with Peter.
No, they surely weren’t. Galatians 2:12. I Corthians 1:12.
And to move the discussion along, neither did the Fathers at the Ecumenical Councils, where none of the Popes ever showed: the 1st and 2nd had no imput from him (the 2nd not even from anyone from his patriarchate); at the 3rd his legates stood by as the Pope of Alexandria conducted the Church’s business in deposing Nestorius; the 4th did accept the Pope’s tome, but only after they examined in in a committe of 200, and then the Council issued its own definition of Faith; the 5the proceeded over the objections of the Pope, whom they removed from the diptychs; and the 6th anathematized another Pope.
2nd seems to forget Nero was supreme pontiff at the time. The emperor Gratian, not Christ, gave the title to the Pope of Rome, after Constantine’s conversion.
Fallacy. Begging the question. You must establish that Jesus established in Rome. I already know that your proof for that is also a fallacy. "Peter was in Rome"Non-sequitor
Yes. 2nd is right the Lord was using the Roman state to convert the world, which is why the canons and the Fathers explicitely state that Rome’s primacy derived from her status as capital of the Empire.
And I pointed out that your proofs were fallacious.
And in the case of St. Augustine, you pointed out he retracted the statements that 2nd depends on.
Fallacy. Nonsequitor. Just becasue Peter was buried in Rome it does not follow that Rome is the Mother church to which all churches must submit.
In fact the NT shows that Jerusalem is the Mother Church (note St. Paul’s concern to go to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem in Acts 15, though from Galatians we know St. Peter was in Antioch), and Antioch the Mother of Petrine Sees (which Pope St. Gregory refers to).
Fallacy. Arguing off the point and straw man argument. You quoted Augustine for proof that he believed the Rock was Peter. I pointed out that was a fallacy of card stacking because Augustine retracted that view. I never asserted that he was infallible.
Fallacy. Nonsequitor. Augustine is speaking of the Catholic Church not the church of Rome.
yes, but then again you are arguing with someone who reads pope where ever the Bible says “father.” I’ve yet to get an answer if that applies to John 8:44:
You are of your pope the devil, and your will is to do your pope’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the pope of lies.
Btw 2nd, if the spelling word on your test is “father,” if you spell it “p-o-p-e,” it’s going to be marked wrong.
Originally Posted by 2ndGen
“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).
Fallacy. Card stacking. You neglect to mention that for Augustine, Roman authority did not overide the orthodox catholic faith when Pope Zosimus judged Pelagius to be orthodox.
Also interesting that he highlights the phrase where it say “an,” not “the.” Our ultramontanist has slipped again (there’s a way out of this dilmena, but I’ll let our “scholar” find it).
Fallacy. Non-sequitor. Peter also sat in the chair of the church in Antioch.
Yes, but our ultramontanist doesn’t believe that, despite that his supreme pontiffs made a holiday of the fact of St. Peter founding the See on Antioch (Feb. 22).
