Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Mikeb85]

Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, 'To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Mt 16:19)... Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It's not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord's sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles."
(Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

You missed this bit from that same sermon:

Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, who He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.” For it was not one man, but the unity of the Church, which received those keys. In that way, therefore, Peter’s own excellence is foretold, because he acted the part of the unity and totality of the Church herself, when to him it was said, “I hand over to you,” what was in fact handed over to all.

 

[boswd]

You make an excellent point.

"Defective" would be appropriate since that is the term used for us.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

I'm sure both of you well studied and well versed people of the english language do realize that the context of the word "defective" is in it's definition of to dessert, to leave. You know such as "I defected from Russia to the US".

But I guess that isn't as much fun here on GT to put things in it's proper context.

 

[boswd]

You missed this bit from that same sermon:

But what about this point made by St. Aug.


So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship."
(On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

What I believe on Peter was that yes I agree in most regards he is equal to all the Apostle's but he was given a leadership role from Christ. I do believe he was called upon to keep everyone on the same page and not just have 12 different people going out into the world to spread his word without any type of organzition to among them. And this was given to Peter.

 

[sempervirens]

The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth...

So begins the letter of Clement to the Corinthians - this the Clement mentioned in Phillipians 4:3. The most straightforward interpretation of this letter is that it shows a bishop of Rome, within the generation of Peter and Paul's martyrdom, advising, correcting, and strengthening a brethren church in Corinth. This letter was part of the canon of the church in Corinth, and elsewhere, for centuries.

Its clear from Clements letter and the church fathers that the church at Rome had a special role in unifying the early church, and a reputation for orthodoxy for centuries after. Perhaps we can step back from the office of the pope itself and think about the church at Rome.

The papacy does not depend on a claim of an unbroken chain (a 2000 year history is at times messy and this chain is in fact broken each time a pope dies before a new one is elected). So one must ask by what right does the church at Rome elect a bishop claiming to be Peter's successor?

It was the witness of her martyrs: Peter, Paul, Clement himself, and untold others in the persecutions at the heart of the empire during the peak of Rome's reach that produced a spiritual force which gripped and transformed the pagan world, not some scrip from Constantine.

I can see why some who have issues with the papacy might be loathe to admit of church proper in Rome prior to Constantine but if you look at the historical record, from Clement's letter written in the generation of Peter and Paul's martyrdom, one can see a church operating in continuity to the present day.

A new bishop is elected in the sensus fidei of the church at Rome, in communion with her saints and holy martyrs, preeminent among them Peter himself.

OK so even if one recognizes the continuity of the church at Rome and the apostolic succession of her bishops what gives the church at Rome the right to claim her bishop to be Peter's successor? Clement's letter isn't explicit on this but the authority with which it is written at that earliest time in church history does offer some food for thought.

 

[TraderJack]

well this is also from St. Aug"


All the more should he have feared to break the peace of unity, because Carthage was a great and famous city, whence the evil might spread from the head through the whole body of Africa. Besides, it was in touch with the overseas countries, and enjoyed widespread fame. Certainly, it had a bishop of no ordinary authority, who was able to pay no attention to a crowd of hostile conspirators, when he saw that he was united by pastoral letters to the Church of Rome, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished, and to those other countries from which the Gospel came to Africa, itself, and when arrangements were made for him to plead his case if his opponents should try to win over those churches from him."
(To Glorius et. al., Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397-398), in FC, XII:187)

And as has been shown, time after time, "primacy" as used by Augustine is not in the sense that the church of the Romans came to later define it, as a universal juridictional supremacy.

 

[TraderJack]

But what about this point made by St. Aug.


So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship."
(On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

What I believe on Peter was that yes I agree in most regards he is equal to all the Apostle's but he was given a leadership role from Christ. I do believe he was called upon to keep everyone on the same page and not just have 12 different people going out into the world to spread his word without any type of organzition to among them. And this was given to Peter.

And you are wrong, as has been down numerous times.

 

[TraderJack]

I'm sure both of you well studied and well versed people of the english language do realize that the context of the word "defective" is in it's definition of to dessert, to leave. You know such as "I defected from Russia to the US".

But I guess that isn't as much fun here on GT to put things in it's proper context.

And the proper context in which Rome has called us True Christians, "defective" is the context of not being true churches, "not having the fullness of the truth", etc, etc.

Defective, as in "sick", as like having a birth defect.

THAT is the context.

IF you had actually read what Rome has actually said, you would know that, but then, maybe you are just trying to blow smoke.

 

[boswd]

And as has been shown, time after time, "primacy" as used by Augustine is not in the sense that the church of the Romans came to later define it, as a universal juridictional supremacy.

Your arguments seems to be straight from Webster's playbook, have you given him credit for your responses?

 

[boswd]

And the proper context in which Rome has called us True Christians, "defective" is the context of not being true churches, "not having the fullness of the truth", etc, etc.

Defective, as in "sick", as like having a birth defect.

THAT is the context.

IF you had actually read what Rome has actually said, you would know that, but then, maybe you are just trying to blow smoke.

No, no that isn't it but you can keep running with it if you like.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth...

Thank you. Without my re-reading first and second Clement, let me ask you (since you are very familiar with them): Does Clement identify himself as the infallible Pope of The Catholic Church in those letters? Does he state his love and concern for the brethern in Corinth or does he state that he - because he is the successor to Peter and has "the keys" and is the SUPREME and superior lord of the whole denomination - he has authority over the bishop in Corinth? Furthermore, does he state that Peter founded the congregation in Rome and was the infallible Pope of the whole Catholic Church from that chair?

Thank you!

if you look at the historical record, from Clement's letter written in the generation of Peter and Paul's martyrdom, one can see a church operating in continuity to the present day.

Not from what I've read. AT MOST (and it's stretching it - but I'll permit that), what we have is a continuity of bishops in Rome, just as is true for several other diocese, from the mid first century to the present. Doesn't have any signfiicance beyond that: there have been bishops in those dioceses right down to today. There are still bishops today, more outside the Catholic denomination than inside of it.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[boswd]

.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ran right over that smokin' troll, TJ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And the proper context in which Rome has called us True Christians, "defective" is the context of not being true churches, "not having the fullness of the truth", etc, etc.

Defective, as in "sick", as like having a birth defect.

THAT is the context.

IF you had actually read what Rome has actually said, you would know that, but then, maybe you are just trying to blow smoke.

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

de⋅fec⋅tive  /dɪˈfɛk

tɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-fek-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective

1.having a defect or flaw; faulty; imperfect: a defective machine.
2.Psychology. characterized by subnormal intelligence or behavior.
3.Grammar. (of an inflected word or its inflection) lacking one or more of the inflected forms proper to most words of the same class in the language, as English must, which occurs only in the present tense.

 

[boswd]

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

de⋅fec⋅tive  /dɪˈfɛk

tɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-fek-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective

1.having a defect or flaw; faulty; imperfect: a defective machine.
2.Psychology. characterized by subnormal intelligence or behavior.
3.Grammar. (of an inflected word or its inflection) lacking one or more of the inflected forms proper to most words of the same class in the language, as English must, which occurs only in the present tense.

intr.v., -fect·ed, -fect·ing, -fects. (dĭ-fĕkt')

1. To disown allegiance to one's country and take up residence in another: a Soviet citizen who defected to Israel.
2. To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group: defected from the party over the issue of free trade.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

intr.v., -fect·ed, -fect·ing, -fects. (dĭ-fĕkt')

1. To disown allegiance to one's country and take up residence in another: a Soviet citizen who defected to Israel.
2. To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group: defected from the party over the issue of free trade.

Effectiveness means the capability of producing an effect.

The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, "being very or not much effective". However it does not inform on the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient.
An ordinary way to distinguish among effectiveness, efficacy, and efficiency:

• efficiency: doing things in the most economical way (good input to output ratio)
• efficacy: getting things done, i.e. meeting targets
• effectiveness: doing "right" things, i.e. setting right targets to achieve an overall goal (the effect)
• (effectivity: mostly synonym to effectiveness; usage is rather rare)

 

[boswd]

Effectiveness means the capability of producing an effect.

The word effective is sometimes used in a quantitative way, "being very or not much effective". However it does not inform on the direction (positive or negative) and the comparison to a standard of the given effect. Efficacy, on the other hand, is the ability to produce a desired amount of the desired effect, or success in achieving a given goal. Contrary to efficiency, the focus of efficacy is the achievement as such, not the resources spent in achieving the desired effect. Therefore, what is effective is not necessarily efficacious, and what is efficacious is not necessarily efficient.

An ordinary way to distinguish among effectiveness, efficacy, and efficiency:

• efficiency: doing things in the most economical way (good input to output ratio)
• efficacy: getting things done, i.e. meeting targets
• effectiveness: doing "right" things, i.e. setting right targets to achieve an overall goal (the effect)
• (effectivity: mostly synonym to effectiveness; usage is rather rare)

Won't our middle school English teachers be proud of us

 

[Rick Otto]

"Us"? LOL,... no.
Just of LLOJ.
You need to go back & spend more time there.

 

[boswd]

Hi Rick how are you doing? I hope the family is well

 

[sempervirens]

[/i]


Thank you. Without my re-reading first and second Clement, let me ask you (since you are very familiar with them): Does Clement identify himself as the infallible Pope of The Catholic Church in those letters? Does he state his love and concern for the brethern in Corinth or does he state that he - because he is the successor to Peter and has "the keys" and is the SUPREME and superior lord of the whole denomination - he has authority over the bishop in Corinth? Furthermore, does he state that Peter founded the congregation in Rome and was the infallible Pope of the whole Catholic Church from that chair?

Thank you!
.

Clement's first letter (the second was spuriously attributed to him) is an important document - perhaps the oldest Christian writing outside the new testament itself. I'm no expert on it but am intrigued that for quite some time it was considered part of the canon by a large part of the church.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

This letter demonstrates the exercise of primacy of the church of Rome, at a time her bishop was still a living witness to the apostles. I would encourage anyone focused on the claims of the Papacy to study it.

I would like to set the arguments over the Papacy as it exists today and focus on how the church is seen working in this letter while it was still a comparative mustard seed. We see in this letter that Clement considers it his duty to turn attention to matters in Corinth.

That he considers it a sin to disobey his authority:

Paragraph 59:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.

He considers his authority to be that of the Holy Spirit:

Paragraph 63:

Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter.



A rather bold claim I must say - and within the living memory of the apostles!

[/i]
Not from what I've read. AT MOST (and it's stretching it - but I'll permit that), what we have is a continuity of bishops in Rome, just as is true for several other diocese, from the mid first century to the present. Doesn't have any signfiicance beyond that: there have been bishops in those dioceses right down to today. There are still bishops today, more outside the Catholic denomination than inside of it.






.

What I meant is that the sacramental christian life, most particularly the eucharist and the communion it affords, has been in continuity in the diocese at Rome since the days of her earliest Martyrs. It was the witness of her holy martyrs which allowed the faith to take root throughout the empire, not a decree from an emperor. And it is this sacramental communion from which the bishops of Rome are elected to this day. I am not saying you see the modern papacy and all its trappings in Clement's letter, but you do see a church (and her bishop) strengthening the brethren just as Christ commanded Peter to.

A commentary from Benedict XVI on Clement:

Clement of Rome - Pope Benedict XVI

On Wednesday, 7 March [2007], in the Vatican's Paul VI Audience Hall, the Holy Father delivered the following Address, translated from Italian.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
In these past months we have meditated on the figures of the individual Apostles and on the first witnesses of the Christian faith who are mentioned in the New Testament writings.
Let us now devote our attention to the Apostolic Fathers, that is, to the first and second generations in the Church subsequent to the Apostles. And thus, we can see where the Church's journey begins in history.
St. Clement, Bishop of Rome in the last years of the first century, was the third Successor of Peter, after Linus and Anacletus. The most important testimony concerning his life comes from St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons until 202. He attests that Clement "had seen the blessed Apostles", "had been conversant with them", and "might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes" (Adversus Haer. 3, 3, 3).
Later testimonies which date back to between the fourth and sixth centuries attribute to Clement the title of martyr.
The authority and prestige of this Bishop of Rome were such that various writings were attributed to him, but the only one that is certainly his is the Letter to the Corinthians. Eusebius of Caesarea, the great "archivist" of Christian beginnings, presents it in these terms: "There is extant an Epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter Church. We know that this Epistle also has been publicly used in a great many Churches both in former times and in our own" (Hist. Eccl. 3, 16).
An almost canonical character was attributed to this Letter. At the beginning of this text — written in Greek —Clement expressed his regret that "the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves" (1, 1) had prevented him from intervening sooner. These "calamitous events" can be identified with Domitian's persecution: therefore, the Letter must have been written just after the Emperor's death and at the end of the persecution, that is, immediately after the year 96....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"Us"? LOL,... no.
Just of LLOJ.
You need to go back & spend more time there.

The one teacher I always got along with back then is my Art teacher. Always got A's