Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[sunlover1]

Sorry I feel cheeky today.. I will try and refrain.. Maybe

You're cheeky and Rick's corny

​

​

Those are considered legitimate outgrowths of succession. Picture Peter as the root, bishops as stalk, priests as leaves, ears of corn as congregations.​

​

 

[Rick Otto]

lol. I'll stalk you for that.
I won't leaf it alone.

 

[NewMan99]

This is all very nice and lovely except for one slight omission. What do you say about that pesky chap named Paul? Seems to me that he was never one of the twelve and he never had a settled bishopric. He seemed to wander around a lot and get himself into all sorts of trouble. To top matters off he claimed apostolic authority!

And if you re-read my post, you will see this issue addressed. Perhaps you missed it (which is not necessarily your fault since it is long).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And if you re-read my post, you will see this issue addressed. Perhaps you missed it (which is not necessarily your fault since it is long).

As long as it isn't a "ruse" to try and proselyze non-RCs to Roman Catholicism

*snip*........However, we Catholics must then point out that the Bishop of Antioch, while he succeeds to Peter's place as bishop of Antioch, did not succeed to Peter's Christ-given ministry of Rock, Key-bearer, and Vicarious Head of the universal Church, since Peter himself continued to hold that ministry when he left Antioch for Rome, and it was in Rome that Peter laid down this ministry, passing it to a successor.

But, appreciating the Eastern Orthodox concern helps us to see how Apostolic succession really works, and to address the first concern above. For, when we speak about Apostolic succession from Peter, for example, we do not mean that only one "office" or "bishopric" succeeds from Peter, or that only one man (e.g. the Pope) is Peter's Apostolic successor.

For, while the Pope happens to hold Peter's special ministry as Rock and Key-bearer, he is not the only bishop who succeeds from Peter.

 

[sunlover1]

lol. I'll stalk you for that.
I won't leaf it alone.

Aww "shucks".

​

​

Picture Peter as the root, bishops as stalk, priests as leaves, ears of corn as congregations.​

Or you could picture it this way:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51561536#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51561536#_ftnref1


​

Looks like WE are all able ministers of the gospel of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

Newman99--

Floating trial balloons is the thought that comes to mind.

So, here's a comment:

"Secondly, it must be understood that the Apostles essentially failed to establish the Church in the form that they originally intended it to take. The primary mission of the Apostles was the wholesale conversion and restoration of Judaism - to have a Church that was primarily Jewish, "

I appreciate the admission that for some duration the Apostles failed to establish the intended form of the Church. It is a way around the 'gates of Hell shall not prevail' verse. Correct, it will not prevail, even though there are times the Church failed.

However, the mission was not to restore Judaism, although the RCC certainly and clearly tries to do that, the mission was to spread the Good News to ALL, beginning in Jerusalem.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I appreciate the admission that for some duration the Apostles failed to establish the intended form of the Church. It is a way around the 'gates of Hell shall not prevail' verse. Correct, it will not prevail, even though there are times the Church failed.

However, the mission was not to restore Judaism, although the RCC certainly and clearly tries to do that, the mission was to spread the Good News to ALL, beginning in Jerusalem.

Judaism was tried and found lacking and is still that way today

Acts 13:46 Being bold yet Paul and Barnabas said "to ye it was necessary first to be spoken the Word of the God.
Since ye are thrusting away it and not worthy judging yeselves of the age-abiding life Behold! we are turning into the Nations".

 

[NewMan99]

Newman99--

Floating trial balloons is the thought that comes to mind.

So, here's a comment:

"Secondly, it must be understood that the Apostles essentially failed to establish the Church in the form that they originally intended it to take. The primary mission of the Apostles was the wholesale conversion and restoration of Judaism - to have a Church that was primarily Jewish, "

I appreciate the admission that for some duration the Apostles failed to establish the intended form of the Church. It is a way around the 'gates of Hell shall not prevail' verse. Correct, it will not prevail, even though there are times the Church failed.

However, the mission was not to restore Judaism, although the RCC certainly and clearly tries to do that, the mission was to spread the Good News to ALL, beginning in Jerusalem.

Well...a couple of things...

I don't quite agree with you that the CC tries (either now or in the past) to "restore" Judaism, but I will submit to you that we try to "complete" what was begun in Judaism. There is a subtle, but important, difference between the two.

As to the mission of Christianity - I quite agree that the mission is to spread the Good News to ALL - however - it must also be noted that this was not initially in the minds of the Apostles. As time passed, the Spirit Revealed more to Peter (see Acts 10), Paul, and hence the rest of the Church (which was very predominately Jewish at the time) what role the Gentiles had in all of this. It wasn't as if the Apostles knew immediately after Pentecost that "the mission" included Gentiles, which is why God spoke to Peter in a vision and to Paul on the road to Damascus. At first, they didn't know...but then...they did.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Joachim]

As long as it isn't a "ruse" to try and proselyze non-RCs to Roman Catholicism

*snip*........However, we Catholics must then point out that the Bishop of Antioch, while he succeeds to Peter's place as bishop of Antioch, did not succeed to Peter's Christ-given ministry of Rock, Key-bearer, and Vicarious Head of the universal Church, since Peter himself continued to hold that ministry when he left Antioch for Rome, and it was in Rome that Peter laid down this ministry, passing it to a successor.

But, appreciating the Eastern Orthodox concern helps us to see how Apostolic succession really works, and to address the first concern above. For, when we speak about Apostolic succession from Peter, for example, we do not mean that only one "office" or "bishopric" succeeds from Peter, or that only one man (e.g. the Pope) is Peter's Apostolic successor.

For, while the Pope happens to hold Peter's special ministry as Rock and Key-bearer, he is not the only bishop who succeeds from Peter.

But he is the chief bishop and by virtue of his office, his final office, established that office as the office in which God would place the person who he meant to lead the universal flock.


The reason he is named Peter is because Peter means rock. The intent of Jesus was very clear.

 

[Standing Up]

Well...a couple of things...

I don't quite agree with you that the CC tries (either now or in the past) to "restore" Judaism, but I will submit to you that we try to "complete" what was begun in Judaism. There is a subtle, but important, difference between the two.

Well, it is what you said, ""Secondly, it must be understood that the Apostles essentially failed to establish the Church in the form that they originally intended it to take. The primary mission of the Apostles was the wholesale conversion and restoration of Judaism - to have a Church that was primarily Jewish, ""

Perhaps because it is so subtle, there is no difference.

However, if you agree that the mission was not to restore Judaism, does that change your argument? It appeared to be a key point, after all, when the 12 tribes offered their rods, only the Levitical rod blossomed.

As to the mission of Christianity - I quite agree that the mission is to spread the Good News to ALL - however - it must also be noted that this was not initially in the minds of the Apostles. As time passed, the Spirit Revealed more to Peter (see Acts 10), Paul, and hence the rest of the Church (which was very predominately Jewish at the time) what role the Gentiles had in all of this. It wasn't as if the Apostles knew immediately after Pentecost that "the mission" included Gentiles, which is why God spoke to Peter in a vision and to Paul on the road to Damascus. At first, they didn't know...but then...they did.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Well, again, you just said they failed in their mission, now you have it that they only understood what their mission was as time went on??? If they didn't know, then they couldn't have failed. Were they dumb or incompetent?

Your point is groundless and circular. Of course the apostles knew. What do you think Christ did with them those 40 days from resurrection to ascension? Fished? Mt. 28:4 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Obedience, however, is another thing. Persecution will get them going though.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But he is the chief bishop and by virtue of his office, his final office, established that office as the office in which God would place the person who he meant to lead the universal flock.


The reason he is named Peter is because Peter means rock. The intent of Jesus was very clear.

But we don't need your pope to lead us

 

[Joachim]

But we don't need your pope to lead us

He's not just our pope. He is the leader of the universal church. And we know that he had universal authority over the entire church because of the examples that we see


Pope Telesphorus (128-138)
Pope Telesphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Responsible for instituting Midnight Mass, and the Lenten season


Pope Hyginus (138-140)

Pope Hyginus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Responsible for instituting godparents


Pope Pius I (140-157)

Pope Pius I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If nothing else, the evidence of his reign helps further prove that the Roman see was the Holy See with primacy over the church as obtained through the succession from Simon Peter


Pope Soter (166-174)

Pope Soter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Established that marriage was only valid before God when taken as a sacrament in the church


I could go on further, but suffice to say, no one can critically look at Christianity and not come to conclusion that Peter was the Rock and that the Lord's church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic one. There is simply no other way.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi CJ,

I'm always fasinated by the reality that in Catholicism, everything seems to be centered in this point: that the Church is itself.

I think I know what you mean (?). Assuming I do...let me preface everything by stating this is how we see "the Church" (however that might be defined): it IS the Body of Christ, and not just in an analogical sense. Rather in a very real way that transcends everything else, there is no distinction between the Church He founded and His Body (whether or not the Catholic Church is that Church we will set aside for the moment). In fact, by way of illustration, recall when Paul was struck on the road to Damascus. Jesus said "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" This begs the question, when was Paul ever persecuting JESUS? Never. Paul was a small child when Jesus was persecuted and killed. But Paul was persecuting the Christian Church (and its members) at that time. Therefore, it is biblical to state that where "the Church" is - there is Christ.

Now...assuming that is the case...it is not surprising that IF, for the sake of argument, some "Church" is that one and same Church...they would, of course, say that they are "the Church".

Which brings us to this...

Of course, the CC is far from the only institution that makes the claim for itself, but let's move on. Granted, if such is true - a lot of ramifications can be made from that in at least a plausable manner.

Agreed. There is no question that many institutions claim that they are "the Church" - so it goes without saying that merely making the claim is not the same thing as the claim actually being true. In fact, it is, in theory, possible that none of those making the claim are actually "the Church" (especially if the only basis for their claim is the claim itself). However, IF one of those making the claim happens to actually be "the Church" - yes - without question there are "a lot of ramifications" to say the least. But the claim, of and by itself, is fairly meaningless since anyone can claim anything.

A word of caution here, though. While it is understandable that many people would roll their eyes and say "Oh great, another church claiming to be 'the church' - now I know they are false"...well...they are guilty of another thing: assuming that such a claim should be equated *necessarily* with falsehood. Just as we should not be gullible and assume that any given church is "the Church" merely because they claim it, so too we should not be so cynical as to assume that no church that claims it could possibly be what it claims. Do you see what I mean?

The bottom line for me is this: any church that claims to be "the Church" may or may not be what they claim (depending on the merits of their evidence, etc...)...however any church that claims that they are NOT "the Church" or that no such thing as "the Church" could possibly exist...well...I am more than happy to take them at their word and conclude that they are most certainly NOT "the Church"...they are not really the same One Church we see in Scripture - at least not fully or completely. It is not untrue to observe that many Christian congregations in today's world fall into the category that denies that any such thing as "the Church" really exists EXCEPT insofar as people talk about some kind of "invisible" sense of the word. [Note: we Catholics agree that there is such a thing as an "invisible" dimension to "the Church", but we also believe that "the Church" is more than merely invisible]

But we always come back to that point that half of Christianity disputes. In my blessed discussions with Catholics, there always seems to be this, "But Josiah, IF this is true, then doesn't this seem reasonable?" To which I'm reminded that if the condition is true in ANY conditional clause, then the statement is reasonable, it doesn't matter how unfounded the condition may be. But let's carry on....

I quite agree...however...as I said above...the mere fact there are conditions attached does not mean ipso facto that any given speculative comment/question should be automatically discounted or dismissed. Just because something has a condition attached does not make that something either true or untrue.

The point of our little sub-discussion (?) here is your statement that the Pope is infallible (actually, the issue I raised was supremely authoritative - but the points are related) when such is regarded as "binding" by the "entire universal church." You said it is claimed (a word you seem to have used quite deliberately)...

Yes - I did use it quite deliberately. But here I will admit to a bit of a "mea culpa" in that I have been used to teaching fellow Catholics lately (as you may or may not have noticed, I have not been at CF lately...I have been off "preaching to the choir" so to speak), so I have gotten into the habit of speaking "Catholic-ese" more than I should IF I am going to dialog with non-Catholics. So when I used terms like "Church" and "entire universal church" I am actually talking in a form of "short-hand" that Catholics would automatically understand but which non-Catholics may, naturally, not.

So when I said we Catholics believe that the Pope is teaching "infallibly" only when he is teaching "the entire universal church" what I MEANT by "Church" was the Catholic definition of "Church" - which naturally includes the FORMAL institutional dimensions and not just the informal, invisible, dimensions that Protestants use to define "the Church."

ONLY (a word you stressed) when he "binds" the "entire unversal church" (or regarded as such by the "entire universal church.").

Yes - I did stress it and I meant it. So given my clarification given above...what I meant to say (in language that non-Catholics will hopefully understand even if they don't quite agree with) is that we do not consider the Pope to be infallible when he is giving only a private, personal, opinion on a given matter. Many of the Popes are highly trained and skilled theologians who are used to pondering deep questions and exploring possible answers - so sometimes they "ponder" certain things as a matter of personal or pious opinion. Just because they "ponder" certain things doesn't not mean their ruminations are the same thing as definitive chiseled-in-granite doctrines we Catholics (read: those in formal communion with the Holy See) are bound to assent to as authoritative dogma. So we can find examples of Popes exploring theological concepts and devices (such as "limbo" for example), but since no formal and definitive teaching has been issued, we Catholics are free to explore the topics as well and even offer an opinion that differs from that of the Pope. It is possible that his personal opinion errs. That said, once he offers a definitive teaching and formally binds it to "the Church" (read: the CATHOLIC Church...which include those who are formally in communion with the Holy See) we have moved out of the realm of mere personal opinion and into the area of actual CHURCH teaching. This is a whole other kettle of fish. And once we enter into that arena - THAT is when we say that the Pope is protected by a charism of the Holy Spirit from teaching error and binding the Catholic Church to it. Infallibility doesn't act like someone talking into a dictation machine. The Spirit doesn't whisper into the ear of the Pontiff the actual words of what he should say or write. Instead, the charism of Infallibility acts more in a negative sense of *preventing* the Pope from binding a falsehood to the flock. Granted, Protestants think that many falsehoods are bound to Catholic believers, and so our claim that the Pope is infallible doesn't gain much traction...but...it is important for Protestants to understand what WE mean when we speak of infallibility and what we don't mean.

Well, if the ENTIRE UNIVERSAL CHURCH doesn't regard it as such, then it's not - you seem to be suggesting.

When I said "entire universal Church" I was using the formal sense of the term - i.e., the two dozen Churches around the globe that are in communion with the Holy See. But the reason I bring this up is sometimes the Pope might be talking about a problem or a concern that occurs in only one part of the world or in one culture. Or he may be offering a personal opinion on how that one issue in that one diocese should be addressed. Well...in those cases what he is saying would not be considered "infallible" (read: the Holy Spirit has not protected him from error). So in the case of something like Galatians 2, if he acts insincerely in Antioch with Gentile believers, that is not an "infallible" teaching because it is not the same thing as if he wrote an encylical to the rest of the Church throughout the world "teaching" us that this is a doctine we are ALL bound to follow.

Another important thing is that it does not matter one whit (in terms of the charism of infallibility is concerned) if anyone accepts what he is teaching. In other words, just because some people will dissent or not accept the teaching doesn't really matter...Truth is Truth regardless of if anyone OBEYS what they are BOUND to obey. And it doesn't matter if people who are outside formal communion (such as non-Catholic Christians) do not accept what is taught. What matters is that he formally teaches something to all two dozen (Catholic) Churches in communion with the Holy See and the burden is put on them to accept it as they are bound to.

Let's say General Fred says that all good soldiers follow him.

He defines all good soldiers as those that follow him.
Thus, he notes that his claim is correct.
Now, he may admit that other soldiers exist, but because they don't follow him, they are not good soldiers.​

Follow?

​

​

​

Sure I follow, but hopefully you now follow what I meant.​

Now, I well know the wayS that the RCC defines "church." We're just going to disagree on the ecclesiology here, my respected friend. But, it is YOU that stressed that the Bishop of the diocese of Rome is Authoritative (you said infallible) if such is accepted by the "entire universal church." It's "binding" because the whole, entire, universal church so regards it. De facto, unless "entire universal church" = the one specific particular Catholic denomination, then such acceptance or "regarding as binding" doesn't exist. Because there is no other institution on the planet, no other denomination or church body, that regards the bishop of the Diocese of Rome to be supremely authoritative and infallible or that what he says BECAUSE he is the Pope is "binding" on them - does not reach beyond the CC itself alone. Now, Bob, don't put any value on that - I'm NOT suggesting therefore he is not what he claims he is, only that it seems the condition you placed upon such is not met.

​

Well right, but again I hope you now see where I am coming from. I was using "Catholic-ese" when I said "whole entire Church." I realize you, as a non-Catholic, do not consider yourself bound to anything the Pope "bindingly" teaches to me. But, that being said, I will still believe, as a faithful Catholic, that the Pope is protected by the charism of Infallibility nonetheless (when the proper conditions are met) whether you are bound to the teachings are not - or whether you agree with the teachings or not.​

Continued...

 

[NewMan99]

Continued...

Now, you gave a couple of examples of when the bishop of that diocese was appealed to - and seems had some authority acknowledged outside his diocese, or at least his counsel was taken. Thank you for that! No dates were given, and without googling the parties involve, I think we're probably talking a very, very long time ago.

Yes - most of the examples I gave ranged from the fourth through the eighth centuries, but I can give other examples from other eras too.

And it seems it was a politically arbitive role, not one of faith and morals.

I will strongly disagree with you there. What you need to recall is that when Bishops were wrongly deposed it was done so by heretical Emperors acting at the behest of heretical Bishops wanting to occupy certain offices (or vice versa). And since certain (primarily) Eastern Emperors strongly coveted "taking over" the Church (thus advancing their "One Church One Empire" agenda) they were only too happy to jail an orthodox Bishop loyal to the Church in place of a buddy heretical Bishop who would bend to every whim of the Emperor.

So, ultimately, it was an admixture of both faith and politics that drove many of these historical events.

Look, for example, at a list of Patriarchs of Constantinople that were professed heretics:

Eusebius of Nicomedia (341-342) --an Arian
Macedonius (342-348; 350-360) --an Arian (and Semi-Arian)
Eudoxios (360-369) --an Arian
Evagrios (369-370) --Arian
Demophilos (369-379) --Arian
Nestorios (428-431) --author of the Nestorian heresy.
Acacius (471-489) --Monophysite heretic
Phravitas (489-490) --Monophysite
Euphemius (490-496) --Monophysite
Timothy I (511-518) --Monophysite
Anthimos I (535-536) --Monophysite; deposed by visiting Pope Agaptius
Sergios I (610-638) --Monothelite
Pyrrhus (638-641; 654-655) --Monothelite
Paul II (641-652) --Monothelite
Peter (652-664) or (665-666?) --Monothelite
John VI (711-715) --Monothelite
Anastasios (732-754) --Iconoclast
Constantine II (754-766) --Iconoclast
Niketas I (766-780) --Iconoclast
Paul IV (780-784) --Iconoclast
Theodotos I Melissenos (815-821) --Iconoclast
Anthony I Kassimatas (821-832) --Iconoclast
John VII Grammatikos (832-842) --Iconoclast

Now, during that time there were dozens of saintly orthodox Patriarchs so I am not suggesting that everything was always bad - and heresy was not confined to Constantinople either - other sees had similar problems too. But the history of that time will show a strong connection between the coveteous and heretical views of various Emperors and views expressed by the Patriarchs serving in that see. During that same time not one Roman Pope was a professed heretic. Truly, the Bishop of Rome was the "rock" that kept the Christian faith both One and True (thanks be to God that many Eastern Bishops were likewise orthodox too...but all too often they had to appeal to the Pope to help out when times got troubling.)

And I think you placed the "binding" in the present tense (perhaps I'm wrong about that). The Greek Archbishop whom I quoted in the opening post - a man of high standing, sharing what you regard as "Tradition" and Apostolic Succession doesn't seem to agree (I purposely didn't quote from a Baptist, lol) doesn't seem to think that the bishop of the diocese in Rome in supreme, infallible and binding (and he's an Archbishop!).

Of course he doesn't agree. If he agreed he would be in communion with us.

Maybe I'm a simple guy, but am I a part of this "universal church" which must acknowledge him or he doesn't have all this authority or am I not?

A couple of things - first of all we would say that what the Pope has formally taught us and bound to us Catholics is, objectively speaking, True and protected from error by the Spirit. True is True whether nobody believes it or if everybody believes it. We also know that there are a great many Christians who are joined us to by Baptism (and so we are joined together *imperfectly* in the universal church - but joined nonetheless), but are not in FORMAL communion with us - therefore the Catholic Church has no claim of ecclesial authority over such individuals. Again, this doesn't mean that the Pope isn't infallible (properly understood) - it just means that he only has authority over those who freely enter into communion with us.

If the church that must acknowledge him for he to have all this power, control, lordship, "binding," etc. is nothing more than those that do - then we just have a perfect circle of self-authentication and, IMHO, the support you gave has fallen apart.

There is something sinister sounding to words like "power" and "control" and "lordship" and so on. Perhaps you don't mean it that way, but that is the way many non-Catholics (I believe) think of the Catholic Church. That is unfortunate. Coersion has nothing to do with it. You either believe in what the Church teaches or you don't. You either submit to its authority or you don't. I was not forced to give my assent. Before I did so, I gave a great deal of thought to whether or not the claims of the Catholic Church had merit.

If the church is all those who have been baptized in the name of the Triune God, then about half of them don't acknowledge the papacy as the supreme and infallible authority or "binding" at all (including the Archbishop in the opening post). So, either I'm a part of the whole, entire, church universal - and your arguement falls because I don't acknowledge him OR the only church that acknowledges him is his own denomination: no different than any other denominational leader, and your statement that he must be accepted by the WHOLE church has failed. Either way..... Or so it seems to ME.

Well, again, you have greatly read into my words. I only meant to say that the charism of Infallibility is only operative when the Pontiff bindingly teaches to the whole Church in formal communion with him (as opposed to just a small portion of the Church...like if he is giving an address to a single diocese over a particular issue they are faced with) - that is to say - the Catholic Church.

Now, again, not to be misunderstood, IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, in that specific and particular singular denomination, there is an extremely firm embrace of an extremely Roman, episcopal, centralized and powerful goverment.

Wrong. I know it seems that way from the outside. But I believe it is not quite as simple as you make it sound. As I said in a previous post, there are two dozen individual Churches in communion with the Holy See and the Pope has nothing to say about how they conduct their affairs. And even when it comes to the Roman Church, even then there is a lot of autonomy given to the individual Bishops within their own diocese. Rome rarely steps in and tells them what to do. Plus, as you already know, we object to being called a "denomination" - but I know you will probably continue to use that word anyway - even when asked to stop - but we can leave that aside for now.

Decisions are made slowly and carefully (a reality most Protestants do not realize), but ultimately they may be made with finality, and that centers in the denominational head, a man that eventually came to be called the Pope.

I agree for the most part. Us modern folk - especially in America - are not used to the slow pace that the Vatican usually works in.

Now, that denomination surrounds all that with a lot of claims: keys, Apostolic Succession, charism, etc. But the bottom line seems the same, to ME. It is self claiming remarkable things for self alone; it doesn't have the affirmation of the "entire universal church" as you seem to suggest it must, just itself. AGAIN, does that make it wrong? No. But I think it may place the necessity of which you spoke in considerable jeoprody. I'm sure we disagree.

We disagree partly because you are reading something into my words I did not intend to convey.

Again, it seems to ME that the argument that the binding, infallible authority of the Papacy is related to its acceptance by the ENTIRE UNIVERSAL CHURCH is not met.

Acceptance has nothing to do with it. The charism is operative regardless if everybody accepts it or nobody accepts it. What does matter is that the Pope issues a teaching which is formally bound to the entire Catholic Church (even if we all "go off the reservation").

Either you mean by those that accept him and thus are Catholic (a circular argument) OR roughly half of the universal church does not so embrace him and thus he doesn't have that infallibility. Either way....

Actually, I mean neither of those things.

Thanks!


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Truly, the Bishop of Rome was the "rock" that kept the Christian faith both One and True (thanks be to God that many Eastern Bishops were likewise orthodox too...but all too often they had to appeal to the Pope to help out when times got troubling.)

But again, Christians have NO need today to appeal to your pope. How many times do we have to keep saying that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7287910/
Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

 

[NewMan99]

Standing up,

Well, it is what you said, ""Secondly, it must be understood that the Apostles essentially failed to establish the Church in the form that they originally intended it to take. The primary mission of the Apostles was the wholesale conversion and restoration of Judaism - to have a Church that was primarily Jewish, ""

Perhaps because it is so subtle, there is no difference.

Okay - I see where you are going now. Sorry, I misunderstood before. Your original comment was that the "RCC" has supposedly always tried to restore Judaism. My response should have been more clear. It is true that the Apostles (and hence the Catholic Church, since, of course, we Catholics believe Christ gave us the Catholic Church through the Apostles) originally sought to restore Judaism, but as time went by they came to a deeper understanding of their true mission, which is a "completion" of what Judaism pointed to. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law but to "fulfill" it.

But aside from that initial period - those few years - the Catholic Church never meant to "restore" Judaism, per se (which is why there was a significant split from Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity was forced to become an underground illegal organization/movement).

However, if you agree that the mission was not to restore Judaism, does that change your argument? It appeared to be a key point, after all, when the 12 tribes offered their rods, only the Levitical rod blossomed.

No - I don't see how it would change my argument.

Well, again, you just said they failed in their mission, now you have it that they only understood what their mission was as time went on??? If they didn't know, then they couldn't have failed. Were they dumb or incompetent?

They were neither dumb not incompetent. They merely didn't know everything all at once. If they knew everything all at once, then why would they need to convene in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to hash out the whole circumcision controversy? They needed time because Jesus actually had not *directly* taught them the answers to this new question (should Gentiles enter into the covenent via the Mosaic Law, i.e., circumcision). Jesus HAD taught them the answers through various principles laid out, but it took some time and guidance by the Holy Spirit (plus a vision or two) for them to grasp the truly world-wide aspect of their mission.

If they knew from Pentecost onward that the mission included Gentiles then why would Peter and the rest of the Church be so surprised when he had the vision in Acts 10? If they knew everything, then why did they wonder for a period of time if the Judaizers had a point or not?

Your point is groundless and circular.

I don't see how.

Of course the apostles knew. What do you think Christ did with them those 40 days from resurrection to ascension? Fished? Mt. 28:4 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

There were Jews in every nation. They could easily have understood Jesus to mean they should baptize all the Jews throughout the world. Again, if they "knew" what you claim, then why were the Apostles and the rest of the Church so confounded about the whole issue of Gentiles and how they were to enter into the Church? Until Peter had his vision in Acts 10 they didn't even really evangelize Gentiles to begin with, did they? No. Why not? Because they didn't know.

That's okay though, we see where new Revelation continued throughout the Apostolic era. New Revelation ended with the last Apostle, but from Pentecost until John drew his last breath, there were plenty of things taught to the Church that came as news to everybody.


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

But again, Christians have NO need today to appeal to your pope. How many times do we have to keep saying that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7287910/
Can Christianity survive without the Pope?

Then don't appeal to him. I am not stopping you from not appealing to him.

But that doesn't mean that the Pope won't have to step in and settle some dispute between two Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Right? We do have a right to manage our own affairs, don't we? Therefore the need is STILL there even if you don't quite see that nothing much has changed throughout the centuries in that regard.

Back in the fourth century the Church in Alexandria was disputing with the Church in Constantinople - so the Pope was appealed to (often). Today we might have a dispute between the Catholic Coptic Church (in Egypt) and the Chalcedon Catholic Church (in Iraq). They are distinct Churches. They have their own jurisdictions and own hierarchies and archbishops and so on. If they fall into dispute for some reason, who do they appeal to? The Bishop of Rome. If one of them threatens the unity of the Church, or if one of them suddently embraces a heresy, then the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his office as Head of the Church and Key-bearer, has the duty to step in and (if possible) keep the unity and the orthodoxy of the Church intact.

Additionally, there are always some new theological questions that might need to be settled or clarified for the benefit of the Catholic faithful. The Church will never be without need for an earthly shepherd - just as Jesus told Peter to tend His sheep, so too Peter's successor will always be called to the same mission.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[MamaZ]

But he is the chief bishop and by virtue of his office, his final office, established that office as the office in which God would place the person who he meant to lead the universal flock.


The reason he is named Peter is because Peter means rock. The intent of Jesus was very clear.

It is the Holy Spirit that leads the children of God. His flock. This is very clear in scripture. We are more than just a church. We are Christs very Body.. A Body only has one head. Each and every person that has Christ in them are His church. His church is not set up as the OC. With preists who go before God for the people. We have only one High priest Who is Christ who has already given the sacrafice for our sins once for All. For our high preist offered up Himself for our sins and now He is ever living interceding for us before the Father. He leads His people by the Power of His Spirit that dwells inside of every one of His sheep.. Jesus came and fulfilled the OC and He made all things New.. We no longer have to go to a temple to a preist in order to Come into communion with the Father. We are the temple and we have continues communion with the Father for Jesus has torn the veil and those whom believe into Him are walking in His very presence at all times.

 

[Rhamiel]

It is the Holy Spirit that leads the children of God. His flock. This is very clear in scripture. We are more than just a church. We are Christs very Body.. A Body only has one head. Each and every person that has Christ in them are His church. His church is not set up as the OC. With preists who go before God for the people. We have only one High priest Who is Christ who has already given the sacrafice for our sins once for All. For our high preist offered up Himself for our sins and now He is ever living interceding for us before the Father. He leads His people by the Power of His Spirit that dwells inside of every one of His sheep.. Jesus came and fulfilled the OC and He made all things New.. We no longer have to go to a temple to a preist in order to Come into communion with the Father. We are the temple and we have continues communion with the Father for Jesus has torn the veil and those whom believe into Him are walking in His very presence at all times.

we are the Body of Christ, but as St.Paul said his letter to the Corinthians, if every part was an ear, where would the sense of sight be? we all have differant roles in the Church and the position of episkopos is a biblical role. The fact that so many differant doctrines are around in modern Christianity seems to state that even though we are in communion with God through the Holy Spirit and joined as the Body of Christ, this is not enough, by itself, for correct doctrine. If it was, we would all agree on these issues

 

[Ame4]

we are the Body of Christ, but as St.Paul said his letter to the Corinthians, if every part was an ear, where would the sense of sight be? we all have differant roles in the Church and the position of episkopos is a biblical role. The fact that so many differant doctrines are around in modern Christianity seems to state that even though we are in communion with God through the Holy Spirit and joined as the Body of Christ, this is not enough, by itself, for correct doctrine. If it was, we would all agree on these issues

Good post