The papacy

[Gal. 5:22,23]

The following was posted on another forum I visit regularly. Could someone rebut the following post for me?



At the church history class tonight, the teacher (John) shared on the development of the papacy. He mentioned how Peter does not assert his authority or make such a claim in the NT, nor do the other writers of the NT make such a claim; papal claims are not made in the 2nd century; it's not until ~250 that Stephen makes such a claim, and he's soundly ignored by the other bishops as overstepping his bounds; and it's not for a couple more centuries before such a claim is made again, and again it's largely rejected.

John went on to say that a friend of his (Walt) had a friend who was considering converting to Catholicism. Walt and his friend discussed the issues at length, read, argued, discussed, etc., various Catholic apologetics works, etc., and finally the person who was thinking of converting to Catholicism asked Walt and John to come over to his house and meet with Fr. Mitch Pacwa from University of Dallas so the four of them could discuss these things. Which they did, for about 3 hours. Fr. Pacwa basically agreed with everything that John said (above), and admitted that there were no overt or accepted claims for the papacy for the first several centuries of the church. When asked why, if Peter had such authority, he did not exercise or claim it, Fr. Pacwa's response was: "Peter was too humble." (I'm not sure if he said it as a statement or as a conjecture, i.e.: "Perhaps because he was too humble?") To which John replied: "With all the doctrinal and other issues confronting the early church, for Peter to have such authority (claimed by the Catholic Church to have been given to him when Jesus gave him the "keys," etc.), and not to use it, as greatly needed as it would have been, is not a sign of humility, but a sign of gross negligence." I don't know if Walt's friend ever did become Catholic, but John and Walt felt that given an opportunity to defend and prove the basis for the papacy, Fr. Pacwa was unable to adequately or convincingly do so.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Gal. 5:22' date='23,Sep 14 2005, 04:27 PM']The following was posted on another forum I visit regularly. Could someone rebut the following post for me?
At the church history class tonight, the teacher (John) shared on the development of the papacy. He mentioned how Peter does not assert his authority or make such a claim in the NT, nor do the other writers of the NT make such a claim; papal claims are not made in the 2nd century; it's not until ~250 that Stephen makes such a claim, and he's soundly ignored by the other bishops as overstepping his bounds; and it's not for a couple more centuries before such a claim is made again, and again it's largely rejected.

John went on to say that a friend of his (Walt) had a friend who was considering converting to Catholicism. Walt and his friend discussed the issues at length, read, argued, discussed, etc., various Catholic apologetics works, etc., and finally the person who was thinking of converting to Catholicism asked Walt and John to come over to his house and meet with Fr. Mitch Pacwa from University of Dallas so the four of them could discuss these things. Which they did, for about 3 hours. Fr. Pacwa basically agreed with everything that John said (above), and admitted that there were no overt or accepted claims for the papacy for the first several centuries of the church. When asked why, if Peter had such authority, he did not exercise or claim it, Fr. Pacwa's response was: "Peter was too humble." (I'm not sure if he said it as a statement or as a conjecture, i.e.: "Perhaps because he was too humble?") To which John replied: "With all the doctrinal and other issues confronting the early church, for Peter to have such authority (claimed by the Catholic Church to have been given to him when Jesus gave him the "keys," etc.), and not to use it, as greatly needed as it would have been, is not a sign of humility, but a sign of gross negligence." I don't know if Walt's friend ever did become Catholic, but John and Walt felt that given an opportunity to defend and prove the basis for the papacy, Fr. Pacwa was unable to adequately or convincingly do so.
[right][snapback]723464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hi Gal 5:22,23,

John and Fr. Pacwa are correct. Peter did not exercise authority over the original Jerusalem community of Jesus disciples and apostles. James ,the brother of Jesus, did. See Acts of the Apostles.

The concept of the bishop of Rome having power over the entire Church developed much later. The term Pope was employed later still.

Those are the historical facts. Did you expect something else from John or Fr. Pacwa?

LittleLes

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:11 PM']Hi Gal 5:22,23,

John and Fr. Pacwa are correct. Peter did not exercise authority over the original Jerusalem community of Jesus disciples and apostles. James ,the brother of Jesus, did. See Acts of the Apostles.

The concept of the bishop of Rome having power over the entire Church developed much later. The term Pope was employed later still.

Those are  the historical facts. Did you expect something else from John or Fr. Pacwa?

LittleLes
[right][snapback]723539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Don't even start. This topic has been beaten to death already. Let someone else give her a reliable answer please.

[Era Might]

[quote]Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him [Peter], and no longer dispute with each other....[Peter says, 'Men and bretheren...' in Acts 1:15-16]. Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient'. So far was [Peter] beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. [b]And yet he [Peter] had the same power to ordain as they all collectively[/b]. But well might these things be done in this fasion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed."

--St. John Chrysostom[/quote]

St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest Eastern Saints, notes that St. Peter had in himself the same authority that the Apostles had collectively, and could have decided matters by his self. But, as Father Mitch notes above (and I wouldn't trust the account of his words too much), St. Peter was a humble man. He did not Lord his authority over the Church, because "prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed."

The world has also fundamentally changed. The ancient world was disjointed. You couldn't just ring someone up on the phone. The local Bishop had a lot more direct influence on his diocese because he had to. He couldn't fly to Rome. This was also important because East and West developed different, but complementary, traditions. The Bishop of Rome was primarily Patriarch of the West, and the East was led by its own Patriarch. Rome was understood as the final See of authority, but it was not necessary for it to micromanage the general life of the East. As the West grew apart from the East, and eventually with the formal schism, the Catholic Church was almost totally identified with the West, and so the governance of the Bishop of Rome became even more greatly centralized. John Paul II has recognized the legitimate diversity of forms, which he why he proposed a discussion on the matter in his Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint".

It is untrue that the understanding of the supremacy of Rome did not develop until the third century. We read, for example, in St. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", written around AD 175:

[quote]Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. [b]For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere[/b].[/quote]

Edited September 15, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

Here's some good stuff'

[quote]The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.

The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.

1 Tim 3:1-2
    This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach ...
Tit 1:7,9
    For a bishop (episcopon) as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.

Acts 20:28
    Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.

Jn 21:15-17
    When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them "Do this in remembrance of Me."

Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.

Peter's presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name "Babylon" is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter's time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation--classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God--ancient Babylon.

1 Peter 5:12-13
    I write you this briefly through Silvanus ... The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter's presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter's first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
    Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
    After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. ... Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome ... to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
    For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, ... to Siricius Anastasius.

On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.

The only biblical "claim to fame" of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater "order" according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.

The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.

1 Cor 4:14-16
    I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
    As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership "father." In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.

By the 300's, bishops were sometimes called "pope" a corruption of the word for father. By the 700's the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.

It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the "bad Popes." That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.

The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the "bad Popes" is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.

Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.

Lk 5:31-32
    Jesus said to them in reply, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners."
Mt 9:12
    He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do."

The moral miracle of the "bad Popes" is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.

We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists' scandals in 1987 and 1988. [/quote]

[MC Just]

Some Early Church Father Quotes..


[quote]    Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew."

    Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."

    Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."



    The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, "In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."

    St. Cyprian, Epistle 52, A. D. 251, described Rome as "The place of Peter."

    Orien, Third Commentary on Genesis, AD 232, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History, "Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."



    The Little Labyrinth, AD 211, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 5:28:3, "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter."

    Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, 5:1, AD 210, "Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood."

    Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 and 32:2, AD 200, "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]…[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."

    Clement of Alexandria, Sketches, AD 200, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 6, 14:1, "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings; should write down what had been proclaimed."

    Caius, Disputation with Proclus, AD 198, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:5, "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Caius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Caius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’."

    St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

    "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

    "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us."

    St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

    St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, wrote Letter to the Romans 4:3, AD 110, "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive."

    Pope Clement (fourth Bishop of Rome), First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5, AD 96, "But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."
[/quote]

Edited September 15, 2005 by MC Just

[son_of_angels]

Indeed St. Peter chose not to exercise authority over the Council (or Synod, as I'm not sure what the Jerusalem Council would be defined as) because (a) the St. Peter was not assured in himself the absolute power which he had the right to claim, and (b) as it was mainly a local matter, it was fitting that only the local Ordinary (St. James, Patriarch of Jerusalem) would exercise immediate authority over the Jewish Christians. However St. Peter makes a very prophetic statement here "God made his choice among you: the gentiles were to learn the good news from me and so become believers." Truly the nations have learned from the throne of Peter.
James may have been overreaching his authority here, as may be inferred from his talking down to Peter, but he was the Ordinary authority in this Council. However Peter clearly lays down the doctrinal reason for accepting the Gentiles into the fold.

[son_of_angels]

I think this story deserves an icon, though I've never seen one thereof.

[Era Might]

St. Peter DID, in fact, lead the Council. He was the first to speak. Everyone was arguing, until he stood up and began the Council.

And note that St. James did not exercise any authority. All he did was relate what God had revealed through St. Peter.

In the passage I cited above, St. John Chrysostom notes that Peter could make decisions by himself, without the consent of the other Apostles. His primacy was clearly understood, although he always deferred to the collaboration of the college.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Era Might

[LittleLes]

RESPONSE:

Please note the late date, usually 150 years of more after the fact ,of the writings claiming that Peter was in Rome. None claim that he was bishop of Rome.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia which admits that about 58 letters used to establish the fact of papal authority were, in fact, forgeries, known as the pseudo-Isadorian Decretals:

"A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries; they begin with a letter from Aurelius of Carthage requesting Pope Damasus (366-384) to send him the letters of his predecessors in the chair of the Apostles; and this is followed by a reply in which Damasus assures Aurelius that the desired letters were being sent. This correspondence was meant to give an air of truth to the false decretals, and was the work of Isidore."

But lets assume that one of the earliest letters, Clement's First Epistle to the Corinithians, is genuine. It probably is (but not his second).

Pope Clement (fourth Bishop of Rome), First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5, AD 96,

"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. PETER through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, PAUL also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preachingBOTH IN THE EAST AND WEST, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the EXTREME LIMIT OF THE WEST and suffered martyrdom UNDER THE PREFECTS. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

This is actually evidence that Peter was not martyred at Rome. Please note how it says that Paul preached in the east and west and suffered martyrdom "under the prefects" that is, Roman authority.

But it makes no such claim for Peter's martyrdom.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

The poster relates this complaint:

"To which John replied: "With all the doctrinal and other issues confronting the early church, for Peter to have such authority (claimed by the Catholic Church to have been given to him when Jesus gave him the "keys," etc.), and not to use it, as greatly needed as it would have been, is not a sign of humility, but a sign of gross negligence."

Let's look at the passage he's referring to and compare it to the other three gospels. How many contradictions with the other three can you find in Matthew's account?

Matthew 16: 16-20
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.


Mark 8:29-30
And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah." Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Luke9:20-21
Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God." He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

John 1:40-42
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

Note: Peter was named Kephas before he even became an apostle and his brother, not God, told him Jesus was the Messiah. And there no reference to Peterine primacy in Mark or Luke.

Why do you suppose that is.

LittleLes

[son_of_angels]

Put it this way LittleLes, Petrine primacy and authority is a Tradition of the Church. Not only is it upheld by this Church, but by the general agreement of most Orthodox as well as many other Churches in apostolic succession. The Bible is not silent on this issue, and provides many supports for the notion of Petrine primacy and leadership, as well as the notion of apostolic succession (the first Apostolic Synod before Pentecost).

However, as should be expected from a Church operating under persecuted and doubtful conditions, the clear delineation of authority towards a single is not terribly surprising. As for papal infallibility, this matter was settled at various times by various councils and synods, with the earliest record of it mentioned at the Council of Florence followed by the First Vatican Council. Up to the latter, personal papal infallibility, and the recognition of complete and immediate authority in the person of the Patriarch of Rome was truly a matter of conscience. This is the case with all undefined dogmas (like the assumption before the mid-1800's). However the infallibility of the Magisterium, and, to a greater extent, the dogmas of the Church in general has always been held by the People of God.

This means if you can accept the process, you can accept the result. The process is the primacy of Peter (as first Patriarch), Magisterial/Ecclesial infallibility (due to the nature of tradition and the necessity of apostolic teaching), and, finally, the belief in the Bishop, priest, deacon structure of Holy Orders as being the necessary result of apostolic leadership. This process has yielded us this reasonable doctrine, which we must accept as obedient servants and friends of God.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 14 2005, 10:35 PM']Put it this way LittleLes, Petrine primacy and authority is a Tradition of the Church.  Not only is it upheld by this Church, but by the general agreement of most Orthodox as well as many other Churches in apostolic succession.  The Bible is not silent on this issue, and provides many supports for the notion of Petrine primacy and leadership, as well as the notion of apostolic succession (the first Apostolic Synod before Pentecost). 

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Would you seriously expect the Church not to uphold its own claim to power?

Please provide your evidence as to when the bishop of Rome first asserted primacy and if his claim was believed or not believed.

A "tradition" is not proof of fact. It only suggests that the evidence is dated and perhaps should be reexamined.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 14 2005, 05:11 PM']Hi Gal 5:22,23,

John and Fr. Pacwa are correct. Peter did not exercise authority over the original Jerusalem community of Jesus disciples and apostles. James ,the brother of Jesus, did. See Acts of the Apostles.

The concept of the bishop of Rome having power over the entire Church developed much later. The term Pope was employed later still.

Those are  the historical facts. Did you expect something else from John or Fr. Pacwa?

LittleLes
[right][snapback]723539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The fact is that you don't understand Catholicism . You don't understand the Bible and you don't understand the Papacy. I am simply not sure that we should be given forum to formal heretics when Jude says "they must be silenced". Authority in the Catholic Church is not dictatorial. Further the Pope while he is the supreme pontiff, does not excercise that authority in such a manner that local bishops have no authority. Peter in scripture, when the apostles are asked a question, answers for the group and his answers are James states his decision in Acts 15. This does not mean the other Apostles were to be submissive to HIS decision. Acts 15 operates like a normal council today. Popes do not make all the decisions at councils. Peter's wordson the matter of circumcision is highly regarded and the issue is decided after his speach. That is what the council was called for. James speaks on a different issue, that of sacrificing meat to idols. When he speaks his mind they all agree afterwards. There is no indication that ANYONE had to vote on Peter's statement regarding circumcision. I simply am amazed at the number of haters of the true Catholic faith (that is what you are lester) who cannot see that two issue are being decided.

As for this second century bull dung, Clement of Rome is acting in a very authoritative manner WHEN JOHN THE APOSTLE IS ALIVE! Regarding the Corinthians. If that isn't evidence for the papacy I don't know what is. Further other writings indicate wide acceptance of his work as authoritative.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

I should add that Peter does not make such a claim because it is simply recognized by the early Church. Peter's prominence in scripture is enough evidence. He is always mentioned first in lists of the Apostles. He is mentinoed far more than any of the 12. He answers for them when the group is addressed. Peter is the one said by Christ that after they have been scatterd at the crusifixion that Peter would return first and would stengthen the others. I am sure that dear John doesn't like the authority of the papacy and so undermines it. I am sure he does not talk about thes FACTS that I am quite certain that Fr. Paqwa spoke of about the papacy. I have heard Fr. Paqua speak about the papacy and he knows his stuff. He most definitley doesn't agree with John that there was no papacy in the early days of the Church and that Peter was not the first Pope. John is slanting the data as LittleLester is. They selectively quote and distort to match what they believe. They are haters of the true Catholic faith. The are wolves from within seeking to savage the flock and fill the heads of the faithful with liberal theology. They favor gay marriage and hate celebacy. They want women as priests. They subvert the Church of Christ exchanging the truth for a LIE. Avoid them. They are false teachers who will distort the scriptures to their own destructino and yours if you let them.

Blessings

Edited September 15, 2005 by thessalonian