Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. Their lack of docility was alarming!NewMan99 is going to historically prove the EO and OO are wrong on this. Be patient. It's coming. As one Catholic posted here some time ago, the EO are the original Protestants - rejecting the denomination Jesus founded.
.
CJ,
That isn't an exclusively Protestant proverb, CJ. Catholics say it all the time - and have said similar things long before Protestantism ever existed.
Why is Catholicism "Jesus and WE" - not ME - aside from the fact that the very word "catholic" denotes universality (which is hardly a concept centered on singularity)?
NewMan99 said:After all, we believe inThe Communion of Saints - this is HUGE with us. You claim to believe in the Communion of Saints (for which I applaud you), but very few Protestants even understand the concept.
NewMan99 said:2. Submitting to the teaching authority of the Church
NewMan99 said:- we do not believe the INDIVIDUAL person has authority to teach others apart from what the Church teaches
NewMan99 said:4. When we partake of the Eucharist, we are communing not only with our fellow parishoners in Church at that moment, but also with all Catholics around the world - AND - all those in heaven. Thus all of time and space is set aside in a manner of speaking, and ALL of the Church - ALL of WE throughout time and eternity - WE as a family are in communion.
NewMan99 said:5. We affirm that the True Church also has a MYSTICAL and invisible dimension that includes in it all who are joined to Christ by the grace of baptism, even if they are not within the formal institutional boundaries of the Catholic Church. If Protestantism is "we and Church" based primarily on its embrace of the invisible Church, then the same applies to Catholics who ALSO embrace that SAME belief.
NewMan99 said:In Protestantism, however, the focus is greatly shifted to individualism (this is not to imply it is entirely individualistic - my point is that the primacy of the personal often carries more weight than submission to the communal).
NewMan99 said:For example:1. Everybody gets to be their own Pope.
NewMan99 said:2. Sola Scriptura pretty much depends upon individualism.
NewMan99 said:Since YOU, Josiah, are a Christian, do you feel it is appropriate to tell non-believers that the ONLY way to salvation is through Christ? I do. Why? Because it is TRUTH itself to tell people that Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life. I have ZERO problem with telling non-believers that Christianity is the only True religion.
NewMan99 said:But to claim that the Catholic Church is the True Church is not quite the same thing as some pathological obsession you seem to imply - it is NO MORE "obsessive" than YOU (correctly) telling a non-believer that Christianity is the only True religion.
NewMan99 said:2. I fail to see how our claims to be the True Church is equated with "Jesus and ME" since, as I have explained numerous times, our theology is primarily familial and secondarily personal, whereas the word "me" denotes the individual and not the family.
NewMan99 said:If Christianity is the only true faith, then Christians SHOULD SAY SO.
NewMan99 said:If the Catholic Church is the True Church, then Catholics SHOULD SAY SO.
NewMan99 said:Again, I know you disagree that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Fine.
NewMan99 said:Just because a church body claims to be the True Church doesn't make it so either. But the vercity of the claim should not be judged on whether such a claim was made.
NewMan99 said:If every religion was objectively false just because it claimed to be true - then Christianity itself would be false. And I will submit that Catholicism should not be judged as false just because it "insists for itself" that it is True.
NewMan99 said:CJ, it seems to me that you are actually the one with an obsession. In this thread and many others you seemingly cannot get past the idea that ANY Church, whether it is the LDS or the Catholic Church or whatever, is audacious and outlandish enough to actually say out loud that THEY are True. You bring this up early and often. And repeatedly. You always come back to it. It is not my place to crawl inside your head to find out why this is so important to you (and I am not asking for an answer) - but I hope you will take a little time and step back a bit and reflect on why this one topic is such a big deal to you. Furthermore, I would ask you to ask yourself why it is okay for Christians to tell non-believers that Christianity is True, but it isn't okay for Christians to tell others that their particular church is True.
NewMan99 said:I will try to get back to my earlier "project" and post a bit more of the "evidence" I had been promising. I worked a little bit on it yesterday, but other things pulled me away. I should be able to post some stuff later today.
That's not the kind of broad I meant.
"...when the RCC says it submits to the teaching authority of the Church, it just means that it submits to nothing but itself. "
1. Was Peter commissioned by Christ to a ministry that called for the preservation of universal unity and orthodoxy in the Church?
2. Did Peter hold jurisdictional authority?
3. Did Christ commission Peter to be the "Supreme pastor" (i.e., principle shepherd among the Apostles) over the flock?
Gaudentius:
[/SIZE]I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and from his belly shall flow rivers of living water; and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, Whom do you say that I am? Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom [SIZE=-1](Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).[/SIZE]
John Chrysostom:
In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me (St. Flavian, his bishop), the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter [SIZE=-1](On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
Dioscurus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochean metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphaeus of the apostles
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 86, To Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, p. 281).
So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles (De Ecclesiasticus II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782).
It involves some cognitive dissonance.How does a corporate (read: plural - us) equal ME (read: singular - me)?
The above makes the false assumption and usual mistake of Roman Catholic apologists to apply a later claim made in opposition to the consensus of the church fathers by later Roman bishops of being the sole reciprients of the "keys" and "chair of Peter", then in fact the Church has never supported that claim.
[SIZE=+1]According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesnt Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Dont such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peterfor example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choirthat they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO![/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the coryphaeus, the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation. This view is clearly validated from the following statements of Augustine:[/SIZE]
[/font]
Augustine is in agreement with the misnomer "Protestant" view and opposed to the Roman Catholic view.
[/size][/size]
TraderJack said:The common mistake of Roman e-pologists is that they assume that because a Church father speaks in exalted terms of Peter that they have the bishops of Rome in mind in an exclusive sense. This is because these e-pologists assume that the early Church viewed the bishops of Rome alone as the successors of Peter.
TraderJack said:The reality is, in the minds of the Church fathers all the Apostles are equal. The exalted titles applied to Peter by many of them are also applied to the other Apostles.
Did the fathers view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes.
Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO!
Any other view is to deny the facts as the following statements from John Chrysostom and Gaudentius and Theodoret demonstrate. Gaudentius and Chrysostom explicitly state that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, are successors of Peter and possess Peter’s chair:<b>Theodoret makes a similar statement about the see of Antioch when he states that Antioch possesses the throne of Peter:Gaudentius:</b>
I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).
John Chrysostom:
In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me (St. Flavian, his bishop), the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
Dioscurus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochean metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphaeus of the apostles
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 86, To Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, p. 281).
The above statements make it abundantly, and unambiguously clear that a Petrine succession was not the exclusive possession of the bishops of Rome, contrary to the later claims of Rome, which by the way, Vatican I proclaims it's claims of an exclusive Petrine supremacy as sole successors of Peter was taught and subscribed to as a universal practice and divine truth from the very beginning of the Church.
The fathers quoted above indicate that the bishops of Rome are not the exclusive successors of Peter nor are the exclusive possessors of the chair of Peter. The bishops are all successors of the Apostles in collegiality, each apostle possessing an equal status with one another. The bishops as equal successors of the apostles, all possess the keys and govern the Church as co-equals. This is clearly expressed by Isidore of Seville in these words:So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles (De Ecclesiasticus II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782).
It appears that Rome conveniently omits the writings of the church fathers, such as the above, which contradict the claims of Rome.
If indeed Vatican I's claim that Roman papal supremacy as the exclusive successors of Peter was the teaching and practice of the church from the beginning, it is abundantly clear that the church fathers were totally unaware of it, for they considered all the bishops to be successors of Peter and reciprients of the "chair of Peter".
Thus, when the Church fathers speak in exalted terms about Peter they are not referring to the bishops of Rome. No Church father makes that application in his writings. And they make it clear from their statements regarding the other Apostles, by their exegesis of Matthew 16 and by their practice that they did not view the bishops of Rome to possess a universal primacy of jurisdiction to rule the Church universally.
The common mistake of Roman e-pologists is that they assume that because a Church father speaks in exalted terms of Peter that they have the bishops of Rome in mind in an exclusive sense. This is because these e-pologists assume that the early Church viewed the bishops of Rome alone as the successors of Peter.
The reality is, in the minds of the Church fathers all the Apostles are equal. The exalted titles applied to Peter by many of them are also applied to the other Apostles.
Did the fathers view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes.
Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO!
Any other view is to deny the facts as the following statements from John Chrysostom and Gaudentius and Theodoret demonstrate. Gaudentius and Chrysostom explicitly state that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, are successors of Peter and possess Peters chair:
[/size]Theodoret makes a similar statement about the see of Antioch when he states that Antioch possesses the throne of Peter:
[/size]
The above statements make it abundantly, and unambiguously clear that a Petrine succession was not the exclusive possession of the bishops of Rome, contrary to the later claims of Rome, which by the way, Vatican I proclaims it's claims of an exclusive Petrine supremacy as sole successors of Peter was taught and subscribed to as a universal practice and divine truth from the very beginning of the Church.
The fathers quoted above indicate that the bishops of Rome are not the exclusive successors of Peter nor are the exclusive possessors of the chair of Peter. The bishops are all successors of the Apostles in collegiality, each apostle possessing an equal status with one another. The bishops as equal successors of the apostles, all possess the keys and govern the Church as co-equals. This is clearly expressed by Isidore of Seville in these words:
Thus, when the Church fathers speak in exalted terms about Peter they are not referring to the bishops of Rome. No Church father makes that application in his writings. And they make it clear from their statements regarding the other Apostles, by their exegesis of Matthew 16 and by their practice that they did not view the bishops of Rome to possess a universal primacy of jurisdiction to rule the Church universally.
It appears that many here conveniently omits the writings of the church fathers, such as the above, which contradict the claims you make.
If indeed Vatican I's claim that Roman papal supremacy as the exclusive successors of Peter was the teaching and practice of the church from the beginning, it is abundantly clear that the church fathers were totally unaware of it, for they considered all the bishops to be successors of Peter and reciprients of the "chair of Peter".
It involves some cognitive dissonance.
The Church is inerrant, but not the individuals in it.
That self-contradictory statement relies on a manufactured ambiguity of corporate & individual identity that helps monopolize & franchise the power of consecrating the Eucharist. That power was used to lure the desert monks into bishoprics when desert monks were competition for ecclesiastic celebrity status.
1. The "ministry of supreme pastor with jurisdictional authority to maintain universal authority and orthodoxy within the Christian Church" was bestowed upon Peter by Jesus.
Notice that there are a number of elements at play:
1. Was Peter commissioned by Christ to a ministry that called for the preservation of universal unity and orthodoxy in the Church?
2. Did Peter hold jurisdictional authority?
3. Did Christ commission Peter to be the "Supreme pastor" (i.e., principle shepherd among the Apostles) over the flock?
I believe!It is not that complicated.
It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.
Why wouldn't God protect the truth?
That requires the complication of equating making one error with the gates of hell prevailing.quote=Eucharistic Adoration;It is not that complicated.
It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.
He protects it on one hand & reveals it on the other, but it is much more durable than you allow.Why wouldn't God protect the truth?
It is not that complicated.
It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.
Why wouldn't God protect the truth?
Part 3 (this is a continuation from Post #302 and Post #296)
When I left off, I was addressing the first of two questions (from post 296) that needed to be answered.
This post will conclude the answer to the first question, and in the next post I will begin my analysis of the second question.
So, once again, here is the first question (with its three elements) that I will now proceed to address in this post:
This is the point where we must turn our attention to Matthew 16:18-19. I know that this passage has been debated and hashed over about a million times here at CF and elsewhere (and this is only a slight exaggeration), but it cannot be avoided. One thing I will do is set aside the whole question regarding whether or not "this rock" refers to Peter or his confession of faith or both. Rather, I will focus - for the purposes of this analysis - exclusively on "the Keys" and what that means.
Let's look at Matt 16:19, which reads:
I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.
There are a couple of elements worthy of note here: the Keys, and the authority to bind and loosen.
It is true that Jesus gave ALL the Apostles the authority to bind and loosen in Matt 18:18, but in Matt 16:19 Jesus gave to Peter alone both elements of the Keys and the authority to bind and loosen. So what are these Keys that Jesus gave exclusively to Peter?
Isaiah 22:20-22 gives us the "key" (sorry - bad pun) to understanding this term:
On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will ... give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.
What Isaiah is referring to here is an office common in the Davidic Kingdom similar to an office that we would today call the "Prime Minister". See also 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3 for references to this office. In fact, any historian will tell you that similar offices exist in many countries and cultures in ancient times up through the modern era - in the Near East and most other places around the world as well.
The ministers would oversee their areas in the name of the King when the King was not personally present. In modern times we see this in the United States when the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, meets with foreign leaders/dignitaries and presses forward the agenda and policies of the President and the Obama Administration. She acts in the name of the President. She has real authority and real power but she has authority only because she was appointed by the President for that role and she is subservient to him.
In any case, in the Davidic Kingdom they had a number of these ministers all overseeing the daily affairs of the Kingdom. But there was one special minister who had oversight over all the other ministers. He was a Prime Minister in a manner of speaking. So he pretty much ran the entire Kingdom on a daily basis in the name of the King. But he wasnt the King and any power he had was because the King gave it to him.
And the King would bestow upon this Prime Minister a key as a symbol of his office and authority. Only one minister the Prime Minister would have this key. While he was merely one minister among many, he also acted as the Kings vicar when the King was not personally present. He was a minister like the others, except for his additional responsibility of being the Kings stand-in and for this additional responsibility he was given the keys of the Kings household (or, dynasty) as a symbol of this special authority.
So this was typical imagery (a symbol that actually bestowed something) in the Davidic Kingdom. The Davidic Kingdom of Israel prefigures and points to the Kingdom of God referred to in the New Testament. After all, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that her son will succeed to the throne of David and that He will rule over the House of Jacob forever.
Therefore, if it was TYPICAL (as illustrated in Scripture itself as per Isaiah 22, as well as numerous examples from history) for the ruler of the Davidic Kingdom to appoint a special minister a Prime Minister to rule in his name when he is not physically present and if this minister was given keys as a symbol of this special role and if Jesus is the King of Kings of the Davidic Kingdom and if He is to rule FROM heaven and therefore not physically present on earth and if He gave Peter KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven and commanded Peter that whatsoever he bound and loosed on earth would be bound/loosed in heaven well that MEANS something and it is not a very big leap to see the connection.
Simply stated, Jesus commissioned Peter to a special ministry to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after Jesus Ascended into Heaven. THAT is what the symbol of the keys means and would have been understood by the Apostles who were present when Jesus bestowed the Keys TO PETER alone. This was a commonly understood cultural expression of authority to anyone in ancient Israel, and the Apostles would not possibly misunderstand what it meant, even though it might go over the heads of us modern folks who view things like the keys to the city as an honorary non-authoritative symbol of esteem given for a day to visiting dignitaries or celebrities when the mayor proclaims Today is Joe Blow Day here are the keys to the city . The bottom line is that Peter was commissioned, just like the Prime Ministers of the ancient Davidic Kingdom, to be the final authority in the Kings physical absence.
So why was it important for the king of any kingdom to appoint one minister to be prime over the other royal ministers? It was to maintain UNITY in the kingdom during his absence. For if each minister could be free to pursue his own agenda, apart from the policies of the king or the other ministers, the kingdom would quickly become divided and weakened. Therefore the special role of the Prime Minister was to hold the team together and to protect the orthodoxy of its policies and plans for moving the kingdom forward. It was important for the Prime Minister to preserve the integrity of the Kings Household.
And this is EXACTLY what we see Peter doing from the very beginning and by that I mean after Jesus Ascension but before the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost. In Acts 1:15-23 Peter takes the initiative on behalf of the other Apostles and begins the process of choosing a successor for Judas.
Peter acts as a unifier of the Apostles and the Church and he does this by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (see Acts 1:20) even though the Psalms say nothing about Judas or their Apostolic mission. Therefore, Peter is giving an authoritative teaching that is both independent of the Old Testament and is ALSO given BEFORE the Holy Spirit came and supplied the Church the special charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 12:7-11). In this way Peter, the organizer and unifier of the Apostles, strengthens his colleagues and gives them spiritual nourishment.
Another example of Peters special authority is found in Acts 10:1-48. How so? In this passage Peter UNILATERALLY does something extraordinary no other Apostle thought to do: he is the first Apostle to admit Gentiles into the Church! Of course, he did this after receiving a special personal vision from Jesus commanding him to do so. Then, when Peter returns to the others (see Acts 11:1-18), NONE of the other Apostles even question Peters authority to admit Gentiles (which HAD to be a very eyebrow raising thing for them to learn of). The other Apostles merely accepted Peters unilateral decision without dissent.
And then a bit later when certain Jewish Christians from the party of the Pharisee converts tried to impose circumcision on Gentiles entering the Church, Peter (in Acts 15:7-12) gives the definitive teaching to the gathering of elders in Jerusalem. First there was debate and testimony, then Peter rose and spoke, after which the entire assembly remained silent and all debate ended.
By way of closing and concluding this post and this analysis of the first question, I want to remind readers that the claim of Petrine Primacy does not rest on any one piece of evidence, but rather on a preponderance of evidence. The Papacy of Peter is NOT going to look outwardly like the modern papacy. Peter did not wear a pointy hat and he did not need any imperial trappings nor did he have a dictatorial style of governance. These things were developments added on to the office as a necessary adjunct to protect and unify the Church and her doctrines in the face of various challenges that arose challenges that Peter did not face. So while the outward style of the Papacy developed due to necessity, its organic charism of the office of supreme pastor did not.
But this all begs many questions. Doesnt it? After all, many of the Bible passages I cited can be interpreted in ways that might lead to different conclusions. It begs the question as whose interpretation is right. And here LOGIC dictates that if those who were in the VERY EARLY Church those within living memory of the Apostolic era among those who personally knew the Apostles (or were disciples of those who were direct disciples of the Apostles) if THEY understood the special role of Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS in the same way that my original premise states then there are certain things they would do or say to support the claims of Catholicism or they would do just the opposite and treat Peter and his successors the same as they treated the other Apostles and their successors. But did they? Did they show deference to Peter and/or his successors in Rome? If THEY understood Peters special ministry as per my premise and if THEY also showed special deference to successive Bishops of Rome that is powerful evidence not only that the early Church (and I am talking very early) viewed the Bishop of Rome to succeed to the very same ministry that Peter had, but it also tells us that they, too, believed that Jesus HAD commissioned Peter to be the supreme pastor of the Church. When people THAT close to the Apostles themselves give witness by their words and deeds that Peter was the supreme pastor and that his successors were considered in the same light that is a POWERFUL witness that must be carefully considered.
As for now, the first question has been addressed. The point of this analysis so far has been to illustrate that Peter was commissioned by Jesus to be the Supreme Pastor, or Principle Shepherd, of the Flock. Furthermore it has been illustrated that Peter was given the power of jurisdiction (as per the bestowal of Keys symbolizing authority) by which he was commissioned to preserve the Church in unity and orthodoxy within Christs Church.
So starting with my next post (tommorow?) I will begin to address the second question, which was this: That the Bishops of Rome in the early Church succeeded to this same "Petrine" ministry. And here is where I will FINALLY begin to list examples from the early Church that support the Catholic claim that Peter and his successors were not just one of many or merely the first among equals in honor.
Gods Peace,
NewMan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?