If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

[prodromos]

Of course it holds water, and has for 2000 years. Besides, it wasn't a nickname. It was a name change. Sons of Thunder was a nickname. I think you have to also realize that John wrote his gospel 50 years after the fact, and synopsized. The fact shows that Jesus renamed Simon bar Jonah to Cephas, which means "Rock".

After he denied Christ three times, Jesus never called him Peter again.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That we know of. But so what?

 

[dzheremi]

That we know of. But so what?

How does this go from a linchpin of your ecclesiology to 'so what' so quickly?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Swhat that he denieChrist? So what that Jesus didnt call him Peter after that?do

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Of course it holds water, and has for 2000 years. Besides, it wasn't a nickname. It was a name change. Sons of Thunder was a nickname. I think you have to also realize that John wrote his gospel 50 years after the fact, and synopsized. The fact shows that Jesus renamed Simon bar Jonah to Cephas, which means "Rock".

Yeah, it only holds water if you are a member of the church of Rome...you have to believe it because if you don't, the papal house of cards collapses...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yeah, it only holds water if you are a member of the church of Rome...you have to believe it because if you don't, the papal house of cards collapses...

Well it also holds water in the Church of Washington, the Church of Nairobi, the Church of Monterey, the Church of Cebu, along withe the other Churches all over the world. We all are in concert with the headquarters of thChurches...in the Vaticane

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well it also holds water in the Church of Washington, the Church of Nairobi, the Church of Monterey, the Church of Cebu, along withe the other Churches all over the world. We all are in concert with the headquarters of thChurches...in the Vaticane

As I said, only in the church of Rome...none of those churches you made up are autocephalous or independent of Rome...they are ALL under Rome's yoke...

 

[Root of Jesse]

As I said, only in the church of Rome...none of those churches you made up are autocephalous or independent of Rome...they are ALL under Rome's yoke...

That's where you're wrong. We share the same faith, but we are autonomous, but still in communion with the Pope in the Vatican, who happens, also, to be the bishop of the Church in Rome. We're not under any yoke, we only affirm the same faith.

 

[dzheremi]

That's where you're wrong. We share the same faith, but we are autonomous, but still in communion with the Pope in the Vatican, who happens, also, to be the bishop of the Church in Rome. We're not under any yoke, we only affirm the same faith.

Do you not know what autocephalous means? I don't mean to mock you or question your intelligence, but it's demonstrably not the case that the churches of Washington, Monterrey, Cebu, et al. are autocephalous. In reality, no particular church or diocese that is in communion with Rome is autocephalous, since Rome's ecclesiology, which is forced to be the ecclesiology of the entire communion of churches in communion with Rome, disallows this.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do you not know what autocephalous means? I don't mean to mock you or question your intelligence, but it's demonstrably not the case that the churches of Washington, Monterrey, Cebu, et al. are autocephalous. In reality, no particular church or diocese that is in communion with Rome is autocephalous, since Rome's ecclesiology, which is forced to be the ecclesiology of the entire communion of churches in communion with Rome, disallows this.

I purposely didn't use the word autocephalous, nor did I say that the churches of Washington, etc. are autocephalous. I knew generally what it meant, but didn't use the word, either. They are independent churches, though, to the extent that they can cease to exist, and the Vatican will not help. Also, parish churches are autonomous. They report to the diocese, and the diocese provides services, but if a parish can't survive on the funds the members provide, then that parish can be shut down and dissolved. We all hold the same faith, though. And in matters of faith we are supposed to accept the faith, whole. But I'm sure you're aware that, when Paul VI published Humanae Vitae, there were entire bishops' conferences that denied that the Pope could tell them to follow it. And yet, they are still Catholic churches.
My point is not that dioceses may dissent at will, but that there is autonomy. For the record, I don't believe it was right for any bishop to dissent from Humanae Vitae. But they did, and are still Catholic. Just as there are bishops in the Church who carry on homosexual relationships (or hetero relationships), and are still considered bishops who are eligible for elevation to archbishop or cardinal. Again, I'm not saying that what they're doing is right, but to point out the weakness of the authority of the pope.

 

[dzheremi]

I purposely didn't use the word autocephalous, nor did I say that the churches of Washington, etc. are autocephalous. I knew generally what it meant, but didn't use the word, either.

Your reply was a response to Yeshua HaDerekh's post which did use the term autocephalous, though. The fact that you've used a different term in your reply doesn't retroactively change the point he was making -- it only perhaps makes your reply not as relevant as it could be.

They are independent churches, though, to the extent that they can cease to exist, and the Vatican will not help.

Is that your Church's definition of 'independent'? That the Vatican will not help them if they're in financial trouble?

I don't know what the rest of your post about dissenting from an encyclical or being in romantic relationships has to do with anything. OK, so the Vatican/the Pope doesn't micromanage the everyday lives of bishops. That's good, I suppose, but I don't know that this is the criticism being made concerning RC ecclesiology to begin with.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your reply was a response to Yeshua HaDerekh's post which did use the term autocephalous, though. The fact that you've used a different term in your reply doesn't retroactively change the point he was making -- it only perhaps makes your reply not as relevant as it could be.



Is that your Church's definition of 'independent'? That the Vatican will not help them if they're in financial trouble?

I don't know what the rest of your post about dissenting from an encyclical or being in romantic relationships has to do with anything. OK, so the Vatican/the Pope doesn't micromanage the everyday lives of bishops. That's good, I suppose, but I don't know that this is the criticism being made concerning RC ecclesiology to begin with.

Not to be rude, but you're missing my points, so why not move on. The Church is not autocephalous, as Yeshua was trying to say. The Church is independent though. St. Paul established independent churches as he went along. They all believed the same thing, though. That doesn't mean they were 'under St. Paul's thumb', as Yeshua suggested the Latin Rite Church is under the thumb of the pope. It means that the faith was kept whole by each of them. It is the same today, so if you don't get that, shrug, I'm sorry. We believe the same thing because...we believe the same thing. Even though we teach these things in different ways, we teach the same thing. It's true in parishes, too. I've taught in various parishes in my diocese, and each one does things differently, but somehow, we all teach the same faith. So my example isn't the only way we're independent of each other. Maybe a better concept would be that we're affiliated. All I know is that, when I went to Mass in the foreign countries I visited, I could know that I was hearing the same scripture readings, and getting the Real Presence. I attended classes in different dioceses and they all kept the same faith. How does that show that we're under the thumb of the pope?

 

[dzheremi]

Not to be rude, but you're missing my points, so why not move on.

Not to be rude in return, but you're not making very good points to begin with. When the person you're replying to is talking about autocephaly and you focus your argument on something else, like the independent financial status of individual parishes or dioceses, it's not a very good point, because it doesn't address what the post you're ostensibly replying to is actually saying.

The Church is not autocephalous, as Yeshua was trying to say.

So you agree with him. Great. Glad to see it.

The Church is independent though. St. Paul established independent churches as he went along. They all believed the same thing, though. That doesn't mean they were 'under St. Paul's thumb', as Yeshua suggested the Latin Rite Church is under the thumb of the pope. It means that the faith was kept whole by each of them.

I wouldn't want to speak in place of another poster, but I highly, highly doubt that the substance of the argument at play here is that all the churches established by St. Paul are under his thumb because they all believe the same things, so that's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Maybe you're the one who is not understanding the points that non-RCs have against RC ecclesiology.

It is the same today, so if you don't get that, shrug, I'm sorry. We believe the same thing because...we believe the same thing. Even though we teach these things in different ways, we teach the same thing. It's true in parishes, too. I've taught in various parishes in my diocese, and each one does things differently, but somehow, we all teach the same faith. So my example isn't the only way we're independent of each other. Maybe a better concept would be that we're affiliated. All I know is that, when I went to Mass in the foreign countries I visited, I could know that I was hearing the same scripture readings, and getting the Real Presence. I attended classes in different dioceses and they all kept the same faith. How does that show that we're under the thumb of the pope?

Again, I really doubt that this is the point being made here. All churches which share the same liturgical calendar are going to have the same readings, so I don't know how that's any point in favor of anything, since it's equally true of non-RC churches. I could go to any parish from here in the U.S. to Australia and hear the same readings, and participate in the same faith in every place. What does this have to do with RC vs. non-RC ecclesiology?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not to be rude in return, but you're not making very good points to begin with. When the person you're replying to is talking about autocephaly and you focus your argument on something else, like the independent financial status of individual parishes or dioceses, it's not a very good point, because it doesn't address what the post you're ostensibly replying to is actually saying.

Just to follow, the comment about autoencephaly needed to be ignored. And because I only gave one example of independence (another, though, was dissent against a major Church teaching, Humanae Vitae) doesn't mean it's the only one. But take it as you wish. There is no autoencephaly...

So you agree with him. Great. Glad to see it.

I don't. There is no yoke of Rome, as in the pope. There is adherence to one faith. Different thing.

I wouldn't want to speak in place of another poster, but I highly, highly doubt that the substance of the argument at play here is that all the churches established by St. Paul are under his thumb because they all believe the same things, so that's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Maybe you're the one who is not understanding the points that non-RCs have against RC ecclesiology.

But because we're all Latin-Rite, the OP seems to be suggesting that we must kowtow to the Pope on anything he says, and that's just not true. And I provided examples of how it's not true.

Again, I really doubt that this is the point being made here. All churches which share the same liturgical calendar are going to have the same readings, so I don't know how that's any point in favor of anything, since it's equally true of non-RC churches. I could go to any parish from here in the U.S. to Australia and hear the same readings, and participate in the same faith in every place. What does this have to do with RC vs. non-RC ecclesiology?

Except that this is the only way that all the dioceses and archdioceses are connected, really. Of course we have bishops' conferences.
See what you're missing is the argument being made that Peter wasn't the first pope. And, actually, we should get back to that topic. What I guess I don't understand is what autoencephaly has to do with the primacy of Peter...

 

[dzheremi]

Just to follow, the comment about autoencephaly needed to be ignored.

I don't see why it did.

But take it as you wish. There is no autoencephaly...

Yeah. That's the point that was made in the post you were responding to: the RC churches are not autocephalous.

I don't.

But you just did. You did in your reply, and you just did again in your most recent reply that I am now replying to in this post. "There was no autoencephaly [sic]" is an agreement that the RC churches are not autocephalous. Do you not understand what you're typing?

There is no yoke of Rome, as in the pope.

There's no Pope of Rome? What? I'm pretty sure there is a Pope of Rome...he tends to get into the news fairly regularly for doing and saying stuff in that capacity. Or do you mean that the Pope of Rome does not represent a yoke placed upon the RC churches? I mean...that's pretty debatable, seeing as how central the existence of the Roman Papacy is to the RC concept of the existence of the Church, but okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As I've put it before quite some time ago, since the first instance of any bishop being called 'Pope' is, as a matter of the historical record, applied to HH St. Heraclas of Alexandria, the thirteenth bishop of see of St. Mark, it is not even a matter of conjecture whether or not we in the Coptic Orthodox Church could imagine what our Church was like without the existence of 'the Pope', because we had some 200 years of existence as a Church and had been through 12 bishops before that first mention even happened (being applied to HH sometime after his death in 246, but obviously before the death of HH Dionysius of Rome in 268 AD). These even included some pretty big names for such an early period, such as HH Heraclas' predecessor HH St. Demetrius the Vinedresser, and HH St. Justus, the first verifiable dean of the Catechetical School of Alexandria.

But the RCC without the existence of 'the Pope'? I don't know that this is something that the RCC itself can consider, since its ecclesiology is so tightly bound up in this concept. And it would be one thing if we were just talking about the existence vs. non-existence of the Papacy as a thing (what you would call an 'office', but we just call being the most senior bishop in the Church of Egypt), but what draws criticism more than this is the unique prerogatives and authority claimed by Rome as part of its ecclesiological vision. These are, of course, totally rejected by every other Church except for the uniate churches that Rome has managed to carve out of various preexisting populations of Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Armenians, Slavs, etc.

There is adherence to one faith. Different thing.

Is it? Who tells them all what one faith is? Is it Rome, with its infallibility magically protecting its proclamations on 'matters of faith and morals'?

Except that this is the only way that all the dioceses and archdioceses are connected, really. Of course we have bishops' conferences.

Didn't you just write earlier in this same reply "There is adherence to one faith"? I would hope that this is one way by which all the dioceses and archdioceses are connected.

See what you're missing is the argument being made that Peter wasn't the first pope.

I don't really care, since it's already a matter of the historical record that St. Peter was not the first Pope. Again, that was HH St. Heraclas, according to the evidence left behind in the correspondence of Bishop of Rome HH St. Dionysius several centuries before Rome would claim to be home to 'the Papacy' in any exclusive sense.

And, actually, we should get back to that topic. What I guess I don't understand is what autoencephaly has to do with the primacy of Peter...

I don't recall anyone having trouble with the primacy of St. Peter. I think the trouble comes with RC claims that this primacy entitles their bishop to have all these extra powers or whatever that nobody else recognizes or has ever recognized, which are predicated on the eternal and darn near epistemological identification of St. Peter with the see of Rome exclusively, forever and ever throughout the entirety of the darn universe, or so it seems...

 

[prodromos]

I'm pretty certain that if you are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, then you cat be considered a member of the Catholic Church. I'm also pretty certain that you are required to assent to whatever your Pope teaches, even if it is not ex-cathedra, something you guys can't seem to even agree on as to what is and isn't ex-cathedra. I'm also pretty certain that your pope answers to no one in your church.

I'm not going to dig up the various canons which state the above, but it seems to be a pretty fair description of being "under the pope's thumb"

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That's where you're wrong. We share the same faith, but we are autonomous, but still in communion with the Pope in the Vatican, who happens, also, to be the bishop of the Church in Rome. We're not under any yoke, we only affirm the same faith.

No, I am not wrong. But thank you for proving my point

 

[pescador]

There is no mention of a Pope in the Bible. It is a made-up term to apply to Peter after the Bible was written. If the Catholic church wants to call Peter their first Pope, fine, but it has no scriptural basis. Sola Scriptura.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no mention of a Pope in the Bible. It is a made-up term to apply to Peter after the Bible was written.

No it isn't.

If the Catholic church wants to call Peter their first Pope, fine, but it has no scriptural basis. Sola Scriptura.

Maybe if you looked outside of the Bible you'd know where the term 'Pope' comes from.

 

[Albion]

There is no mention of a Pope in the Bible. It is a made-up term to apply to Peter after the Bible was written.

Well, the term itself appears to be older, but you are right that applying it to the bishop of Rome in particular, creating a new meaning for the word, and "proving " that by reinterpreting the meaning of what Christ said to Peter all came centuries after the founding of the Christian church.