White "development of Papacy" lacking.

[simonthezealot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6bLYVD8qM

Dr. White says it all!

Thoughts?

 

[Rick Otto]

From a fellowship of brothers to a monolithic hierarchy.
Then from supremacy to infallability.
How'd ya find that, Simon?

 

[setmeonfire]

i need to buy his book. facts are facts about what the early father thought of having a single head bishop. its undeniable. praise God for that man.

 

[simonthezealot]

From a fellowship of brothers to a monolithic hierarchy.
Then from supremacy to infallability.
How'd ya find that, Simon?

From a group of brain wizards complaining about it on another forum. I'd love to find the whole White vs. Pacwa debate.

 

[Trento]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6bLYVD8qM

Dr. White says it all!

Thoughts?

Answer to James White on the Early Papacy

 

[Rightglory]

Trento,

Just a very simple question.
Does the Pope today have primacy or Supreme Jurisdiction?

 

[Rick Otto]

pope

Ecclesiastical title of the bishop of Rome, head of the Roman Catholic church. In the early church, especially in the 3rd – 5th century, it was a title of affectionate respect for any bishop. It is still used for the Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria and for Orthodox priests, but around the 9th century it came to be reserved in the West exclusively for the bishop of Rome. Catholic doctrine regards the pope as the successor of St. Peter the Apostle and accords him supreme jurisdiction over the church in matters of faith and morals, as well as in church discipline and government. Papal infallibility in matters of doctrine was asserted by the First Vatican Council in 1870. See also papacy, Roman Catholicism.

Thanks, Trento. That is some good reading.

 

[E.C.]

THE reason why Rome was granted so much honor: at one council or another, they decided that since Rome was the capital of the extinct Roman Empire, Rome should also be the place whose bishop shall have primacy among his fellow bishops. However, due to Rome's isolation from the other four patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) a few popes got a bit prideful and decided that Rome's patriarch should enjoy supremacy as opposed to primacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

THE reason why Rome was granted so much honor: at one council or another, they decided that since Rome was the capital of the extinct Roman Empire, Rome should also be the place whose bishop shall have primacy among his fellow bishops. However, due to Rome's isolation from the other four patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) a few popes got a bit prideful and decided that Rome's patriarch should enjoy supremacy as opposed to primacy.

It would seem that the reason Rome or rather the spot of the Vatican has such high regard is because it is where Peter is. This is where Peter and Paul were martyred and their bodies laid to rest. Since Peter was the first to be given the Keys to the Kingdom while the King was away it would seem the next guy in line for the Keys would also be where Peter is.

 

[E.C.]

It would seem that the reason Rome or rather the spot of the Vatican has such high regard is because it is where Peter is. This is where Peter and Paul were martyred and their bodies laid to rest. Since Peter was the first to be given the Keys to the Kingdom while the King was away it would seem the next guy in line for the Keys would also be where Peter is.

If the basis was on where Peter was, than it would be Antioch and not Rome. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever saw Rome.

One of the councils before the 6th century did state that the bishop of Rome shall enjoy a primacy of honor and not authority over all. If I could find which council and what canon, I'll let you know. But, the reason why Rome had such honor was not because of Peter.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If the basis was on where Peter was, than it would be Antioch and not Rome. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever saw Rome.

One of the councils before the 6th century did state that the bishop of Rome shall enjoy a primacy of honor and not authority over all. If I could find which council and what canon, I'll let you know. But, the reason why Rome had such honor was not because of Peter.

When you find this council come back and post it so I can better respond.

Jack

 

[E.C.]

And I have! With the help of people in TAW.

Please go here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33188053&postcount=8

 

[Assisi]

None of his primary sources actually said anything contrary to Catholic teaching...

 

[simonthezealot]

It would seem that the reason Rome or rather the spot of the Vatican has such high regard is because it is where Peter is. This is where Peter and Paul were martyred and their bodies laid to rest. Since Peter was the first to be given the Keys to the Kingdom while the King was away it would seem the next guy in line for the Keys would also be where Peter is.

Jack,
If what you state above is true then you should be able to point to us in ECW's where this Bishopric was handed directly from Peter ALONE to the next Pope, and Jack lets keep it to the first and second century, afterall even though you guys try to call this a developing doctrine, your church says otherwise....
Papal primacy is integral to Catholicism...
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this...
For "no one can be in doubt, indeedit was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

 

[Assisi]

Ah! I see the problem!

Simon, this is a Scriptural belief and it may not be spelled out by the early Church fathers because it is clear from Scriptures.

 

[simonthezealot]

Ah! I see the problem!

Simon, this is a Scriptural belief and it may not be spelled out by the early Church fathers because it is clear from Scriptures.

Show me from scripture where Peter was informed that his universal apostolic authority over all of Christ Church would be passed on to Rome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And I have! With the help of people in TAW.

Please go here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33188053&postcount=8

This is an interesting view of events and explains your church belief but it does not address other matters.

With Peter being the bearer of the Keys he had authority over the entire Catholic Church in his time and was restricted by locale except in communication and it's timeliness.

Since Peter was last in Rome and martyred there he would have passed the Keys to his successor there.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,
If what you state above is true then you should be able to point to us in ECW's where this Bishopric was handed directly from Peter ALONE to the next Pope, and Jack lets keep it to the first and second century...


There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

Quotes from a Catholic Source:

"In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome."

and

"Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome."

and

"Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, 'When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.'"

and

"Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that 'When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.'"


The first two are as you requested and the last two are still worth viewing even if after the 1st and 2nd century.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Show me from scripture where Peter was informed that his universal apostolic authority over all of Christ Church would be passed on to Rome.

Start with 1 Peter 5:13. "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark."

Here we see "Babylon" used in place of Rome.

Qouted from Catholic Source:

"Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”"

 

[simonthezealot]

Quotes from a Catholic Source:

"In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome."

and

"Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, (Jack shall we take your word on this?) that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome."

and

"Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, 'When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.'"

and

"Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that 'When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.'"


The first two are as you requested and the last two are still worth viewing even if after the 1st and 2nd century.

Anything with Peter alone?

Afterall your church stated this...
For "no one can be in doubt, indeedit was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter