D
dvdjs
Guest
There really isn’t much to discuss. But the nonsense that you introduce does need to be pointed out for what it is.
Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
It would not bother them at all ----- UNLESS THEY RECOGNIZED ST. PETER AS THEIR LEADER.
ALL the Apostles, except St. John, denied Christ out of fear.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
I ask your indulgence for a side point on the ECF’s:
- Are the ECF’s inspired?
- Did the views of the ECF’s change over time on some subjects, e.g. related to this thread?
- Were all the ECF’s always consistent in their views?
- Do the ECF’s agree with each other on all subjects they wrote about?
- Is it possible to take an ECF out of context?
- What value is there in quoting ECF’s except to mine for support of one’s views?
- Did some ECF’s over-react to some heresies and make exaggerated statements?
- Did some ECF’s develop reactionary theology in some areas?
- Did some ECF’s ever read their own private interpretation into sacred scripture?
- Did some ECF’s emerge from heresy or depart into heresy?
- Did some councils follow some errors of some ECF’s?
- Is the truth of God always available to those who seek it, even when individual ECF’s or councils stray from truth?
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Didn’t the other apostles care if any of them denied Christ? The other apostles fled when Christ was arrested except for John, but only Peter denied Christ.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Ok, sounds as though you’re somewhat backing off the claims I inferred from your earlier post. I think that’s good if one considers the historical evidence.
In some ways, yes, of course, it’s accurate to say that decrees of the Councils were not accepted by the Church without the approval of the Popes (i.e. Bishops of Rome).
But–this was because the decrees of these Councils were not accepted without approval from **all **the “major players” i.e. all the major Sees (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) as well as the major figures involved with each Council’s debates. Any one of the major Sees not accepting a Council would have basically invalidated it or resulted in its decrees not being accepted by the universal Church. Unanimity, or near unanimity, was so important to these early Councils. It wasn’t the case that one person (e.g. the Bishop of Rome) had veto power or approval power. It was really important to the Church that everyone, or as near as they could reasonably achieve it, agreed to a Council’s decrees.
The Council of Ephesus, for example, held meetings before the two legates from the Pope (Bishop of Rome) arrived, and what exactly were the authoritative decrees (and in fact whether or not the Council was even considered “ecumenical”) was not really decided until the Council of Chalcedon 20 years later (which, as was common, the Bishop of Rome did not attend nor convene).
Too much history here (and too much for me without doing a lot more refreshing and research!) to fully answer your question. For good early Church history references, I’d recommend books by Chadwick, Frend, JND Kelly, and Pelikan.
Hope this helps.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dan-
For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has patiently and attentively listened to all her sons. Then, she has invariably and infallibly chosen which of their ideas to embrace and which to reject.
A
anthony022071
Guest
This verse is referring to the time before Christ came into the world.
This verse does not take away from the fact that Jesus re-named Simon as Rock. We know that Peter is the Rock In Matthew 16,18 because Jesus said to him “You are Rock”,not “I am Rock”.
A
anthony022071
Guest
He was the Head of the apostles,the Head of the priesthood. A pope is basically a bishop (and bishops are basically priests) who holds the office of responsibility for the whole Church,as Peter had responsibility for the whole Church.
Peter actually founded the Church long before Paul got there. Paul said in the letter to the Romans that he did not want to build upon another man’s foundation.
Antioch and Alexandria had “Petrine authority” like Rome,but only the church of Rome was recognized as having authority over all the other sees. web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
If there had been no center of authority which had jurisdiction over the whole Church,but instead autonomous,autocephalic regional churches,then the Church would have been divided. Autonomy is not compatible with catholicity.
catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (De Sacerdotio, 53)
“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven’; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, the great Apostle, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed.” (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)
T
Tomster
Guest
“But since it would take too long to set out here the successions of all the Churches, we shall turn to the great, ancient and universally known Church founded and organized in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and we shall show that the tradition it has received of the Apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops; and thus we shall confute all those who, in whatever way, whether by self-complacency, vainglory, blindness or error, enter into unauthorized assemblies. For it is with this Roman Church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence, that every other Church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved by these faithful.” (St. Irenaeus - “Contra Haereses”)
Schism and heresy were to be installed in the Churches of Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria, in Africa and so on. Then came the great schism between East and West. It then became apparent that the divine hierarchy could be torn in two in certain regions. It remianed whole and undivided no doubt in the true Church. But in the Church that fell away into schism only a portion of it survived. There the jurisdictional or pastoral power was interrupted; but the power of order, nevertheless, could be validly perpetuated.
Thus the proof from the apostolic succession could have two distinct applications; one when these words “apostolic succession” are given a new and more restricted sense, and one when they are taken in the more comprehensive sense we already know.
In the first case the argument from apostolicity will indicate, with an exactitude that might be called material, the presence or absence of the power of order and of the Christian in a Church. Wherever its transmission has been unbroken, there the power of order continues to exist and the cultus is validly celebrated. Apostolicity, to that extent, is safeguarded. But it is a partial and mutilated apostolicity, since apostolicity of jurisdiction is missing. Moreover this partial apostolicity is constantly threatened, for belief in the sacraments and in the Eucharist, being no longer protected against new attacks by the infallible magisterium of the Sovereign Pontiff, is liable to weaken and to drag down the power of order in its own ruin.
As a sign of the always possible disintegration of the traditional belief in the Orthodox Churches, we may recall that belief in the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady was peacefully preserved in the Greek Church till near the end of the fifteenth century, and that it disappeared from the sixteenth century onwards, partly, though undeniably, through the influence of Protestantism. Similarly, the “deuterocanonical” books of the Old Testament were received as inspired after Photius up to the eighteenth century; from then on they were openly rejected by the Russian Church, and then by numerous Greek theologians. That is the natural tendency outside the Catholic Church.
continued
T
Tomster
Guest
In the second case, keeping all its extension, the proof from apostolic succesion will indicate where we may find today the plenitude of the hierarchy and the true Church. How shall we recognize her?
Sometimes she will be plain for all to see. But when great storms rage and schism rends the faithful, where shall we look for her? Is there any certain sign by which we may know her? Has divine revelation said nothing on the point? We know that the word “universal” is to be taken in a qualitative sense, that it designates the true sheep of Christ scattered throughout all the world. Sitting on the right of God, Christ directs them from heaven. But who is to feed them on this earth, to govern them in His Name, and to bring them together into one sole Church? It was to Peter that the promises were made. Open the Acts of the Apostles, written to show that the Holy Spirit is Himself the Principal of the whole Church, and what do we find on the opening pages? A new and startling fact: Peter’s authority over the Church. The Apostles were dispersed. Peter left Jerusalem. Soon after we see the first Christian Churches, still docile under the mighty impulse they have received, begin to turn their eyes to the Church founded at Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul. In her lies the power to rule the universal Church. That power, as time goes on, will have to put forth its virtualities. The meaning of Christ’s words to Peter will become ever clearer. The universal Church, the apostolic Church, will appear ever more and more explicitly as the Church of Peter.
Sometimes she will be plain for all to see. But when great storms rage and schism rends the faithful, where shall we look for her? Is there any certain sign by which we may know her? Has divine revelation said nothing on the point? We know that the word “universal” is to be taken in a qualitative sense, that it designates the true sheep of Christ scattered throughout all the world. Sitting on the right of God, Christ directs them from heaven. But who is to feed them on this earth, to govern them in His Name, and to bring them together into one sole Church? It was to Peter that the promises were made. Open the Acts of the Apostles, written to show that the Holy Spirit is Himself the Principal of the whole Church, and what do we find on the opening pages? A new and startling fact: Peter’s authority over the Church. The Apostles were dispersed. Peter left Jerusalem. Soon after we see the first Christian Churches, still docile under the mighty impulse they have received, begin to turn their eyes to the Church founded at Rome by the Apostles Peter and Paul. In her lies the power to rule the universal Church. That power, as time goes on, will have to put forth its virtualities. The meaning of Christ’s words to Peter will become ever clearer. The universal Church, the apostolic Church, will appear ever more and more explicitly as the Church of Peter.
T
twb1621
Guest
Now common sense should tell you that had they not been given the opportunity to get away they would have denied Him if at all possible. They didn’t want to be associated with Him, which is denial. Abandonment denial… two options resulting in the same outcome… Seperation from association.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
When you say “Catholic Church” you mean the papacy alone? or papacy with councils? or councils alone? In any case, sounds like it brings us back to whether or not the infallible papacy is fully defined in sacred scripture.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers[c] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” …20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " **'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ **21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
It was prophecied about Judas that “another take his place of leadership” and that the one who replaced him must "have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us…"
This does not teach apostolic succession since no one after that generation could fulfill the conditions required.
There was only a plurality of bishops in each church (Philippians 1:1), and presbyters were the same as bishops (Acts 20:17 and 28; 1 Peter 5:2).
The origin of deacons was the apostles who were guided into all truth. There are no new divinely authorized offices after the apostles died.
Peter fulfilled this function in opening the kingdom to Jews and Gentiles. There is no reference to Peter as Papa or as head of the church on earth nor any qualifications for such an office other than those held by Christ himself.
From Jesus ministry until now, Christians have been taught the return of Christ is imminent, as Jesus himself said, so we must “watch and pray.” **The qualifications of bishops and deacons are given for the future church, so why not for the most important office of head of the church on earth? **
I am not the ultimate authority but God through his word IS the ultimate authority. The reader has the responsibility to “study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” This is not about private interpretation but properly understanding what others wrote who were moved by the Holy Spirit.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“Fully” defined? Left yourself some wiggle room, eh?
First, let me say that when I say “Catholic Church” I generally mean the Pope and all of the bishops in communion with him. These are the successors of the Apostles who have authority to determine matters of doctrine infallibly.
For more, however, you might be interested in learning about the Magisterium here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
As for infallibility, you have continued to avoid answering my question which begins the process of understanding papal infallibility:
**Bottom line question for Dan:
**
Does Matthew 16:18 reveal that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus would build the Church? Yes or no.
Why can’t we get a straight answer out of you on this?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
post #324 bumped.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Post #238 bumped.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Those conditions were for choosing the new member of the Twelve,not for choosing all priests. The apostles were priests,not just free-lance evangelists. They administered sacraments,which is properly a duty of priests. “Apostolic succession” refers to the office of priest which began with the apostles. An office has successors and it does not come to an end at death. It would not have made sense for the apostles not to have successors considering that there were many generations yet to come. Jesus would not have withheld from generations yet to come the priesthood and sacraments that he instituted.
There was only a plurality of bishops in each church (Philippians 1:1), and presbyters were the same as bishops (Acts 20:17 and 28; 1 Peter 5:2).
The origin of deacons was the apostles who were guided into all truth. There are no new divinely authorized offices after the apostles died.
Peter fulfilled this function in opening the kingdom to Jews and Gentiles. There is no reference to Peter as Papa or as head of the church on earth nor any qualifications for such an office other than those held by Christ himself.
From Jesus ministry until now, Christians have been taught the return of Christ is imminent, as Jesus himself said, so we must “watch and pray.” **The qualifications of bishops and deacons are given for the future church, so why not for the most important office of head of the church on earth? **
I am not the ultimate authority but God through his word IS the ultimate authority. The reader has the responsibility to “study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” This is not about private interpretation but properly understanding what others wrote who were moved by the Holy Spirit.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
You assume that anyone cannot give thanks for the bread and cup, recognizing the body and blood of Christ. You assume a priest is required for valid sacraments.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Randy, I already answered this question a while back. Yes, my faith is that Peter WITH the confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, IS the rock upon which Jesus would build the church.
I **do not believe that Peter **was thereby appointed to be the head of the church on earth or that such a successive office resides in a human being on earth.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dan-
I’m sorry I missed your response previously.
If Peter is the rock upon which Jesus would build the Church, what does this mean in practical terms? Would this be akin to a professional football team naming Peter their “franchise player” or taking him in the first round of the draft, and building the rest of the team around him?
If you’re not a sport enthusiast, I can switch analogies.
- Status