The Petrine office & Grace

Thatgirloncfforums

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2021
1,823
737
43
Nowhere
✟40,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hi all,

I am in the process of better understanding the Petrine office within the Roman Catholic Church. I am stuck on the question of sacramentalism. If bishop is the highest sacramental office in the Church, what distinguishes the pope from his brother bishops? If it is the right of succession from Saint Peter, doesn't this presume a special, particular grace attached to that succession?

Thank you for the help.
 

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,371
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,547.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Hi all,

I am in the process of better understanding the Petrine office within the Roman Catholic Church. I am stuck on the question of sacramentalism. If bishop is the highest sacramental office in the Church, what distinguishes the pope from his brother bishops? If it is the right of succession from Saint Peter, doesn't this presume a special, particular grace attached to that succession?

Thank you for the help.

I think what gives it its prominence is that Christ himself spoke directly to Peter and handed him the keys to the kingdom. He didn't extend this authority to all of his apostles who, as we know, were also the first bishops of the Church, but he intended them all to look to Saint Peter to have the final say on matters unless he determined otherwise (as in the case of Acts when he deferred to Saint James at the Council of Jerusalem).
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think what gives it its prominence is that Christ himself spoke directly to Peter and handed him the keys to the kingdom. He didn't extend this authority to all of his apostles who, as we know, were also the first bishops of the Church, but he intended them all to look to Saint Peter to have the final say on matters unless he determined otherwise (as in the case of Acts when he deferred to Saint James at the Council of Jerusalem).
Interjecting here, I don't think Peter deferred to James at all, although that is a standard Protestant/Orthodox line. Except they don't see him even deferring, they see James as running the council and making the key decision.

What often gets missed in that analysis are these two quite important things:

1) Peter alone had already made the decision (without the need of a council) to allow Gentiles into the Church without circumcision, and this was by a direct act of the Holy Spirit (read Acts 10). The OP mentions a special grace given to the office of the Pope. I would refer to it more as a charism. But we see it in Matthew 16 when the Father reveals to Peter who Jesus is. And we see it in Acts 10 when the Holy Spirit directs the encounter between Peter and Cornelius and Peter gets the message -- the Gentiles are not to be denied Baptism and are thus allowed into the Church. And this message was delivered solely through the Holy Spirit working through St. Peter. Therefore, the council of Jerusalem was not needed to determine a doctrinal direction -- the Holy Spirit had already taken care of that. But it was needed to preserve unity, because the Church was headed to a schism. Which brings us to James....

2) The other thing that gets missed is that James was the leader of the "circumcision party." It was his group that was going around following after St. Paul and telling his Gentile converts they had to be circumcised (Galatians 2:12). The purpose of the council wasn't to determine correct doctrine -- the Holy Spirit had already delivered that knowledge through St. Peter. The purpose of the council was to bring James back into alignment with the direction of Peter and avoid schism. So Peter does not 'defer' the decision to him -- the decision was already made. And that is why once Peter speaks at the council we are told there is silence -- the debate is over. All that is left is to see how James then reacts -- will he defy Peter or align himself with him. And we see James cite Peter and defers to his leadership and aligns himself with the office of Peter, and schism is avoided.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,371
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,547.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Interjecting here, I don't think Peter deferred to James at all, although that is a standard Protestant/Orthodox line. Except they don't see him even deferring, they see James as running the council and making the key decision.

What often gets missed in that analysis are these two quite important things:

1) Peter alone had already made the decision (without the need of a council) to allow Gentiles into the Church without circumcision, and this was by a direct act of the Holy Spirit (read Acts 10). The OP mentions a special grace given to the office of the Pope. I would refer to it more as a charism. But we see it in Matthew 16 when the Father reveals to Peter who Jesus is. And we see it in Acts 10 when the Holy Spirit directs the encounter between Peter and Cornelius and Peter gets the message -- the Gentiles are not to be denied Baptism and are thus allowed into the Church. And this message was delivered solely through the Holy Spirit working through St. Peter. Therefore, the council of Jerusalem was not needed to determine a doctrinal direction -- the Holy Spirit had already taken care of that. But it was needed to preserve unity, because the Church was headed to a schism. Which brings us to James....

2) The other thing that gets missed is that James was the leader of the "circumcision party." It was his group that was going around following after St. Paul and telling his Gentile converts they had to be circumcised (Galatians 2:12). The purpose of the council wasn't to determine correct doctrine -- the Holy Spirit had already delivered that knowledge through St. Peter. The purpose of the council was to bring James back into alignment with the direction of Peter and avoid schism. So Peter does not 'defer' the decision to him -- the decision was already made. And that is why once Peter speaks at the council we are told there is silence -- the debate is over. All that is left is to see how James then reacts -- will he defy Peter or align himself with him. And we see James cite Peter and defers to his leadership and aligns himself with the office of Peter, and schism is avoided.

Excellent, I didn't realize any of that. I suppose what I said might've been some kind of hold over from the days I was checking out Orthodoxy back in 2011 or so.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Hi all,

I am in the process of better understanding the Petrine office within the Roman Catholic Church. I am stuck on the question of sacramentalism. If bishop is the highest sacramental office in the Church, what distinguishes the pope from his brother bishops? If it is the right of succession from Saint Peter, doesn't this presume a special, particular grace attached to that succession?

Thank you for the help.
I am not sure I understand your question here. Are you questioning why there isn't a separate sacrament to ordain the Pope since we believe his office has a special charism?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Excellent, I didn't realize any of that. I suppose what I said might've been some kind of hold over from the days I was checking out Orthodoxy back in 2011 or so.
It's a very common claim of both the Orthodox and Protestants to try to disprove the authority of the Petrine office. They totally fail to mention that God revealed His divine will to Peter alone and there was no need of a council to determine the doctrine that Gentiles did not require circumcision to come into the Church. Acts Chapter 10 shows the ability of a Pope to define doctrine independently of the rest of the bishops.
 
Upvote 0