If one assumes for the purpose of discussion that Peter was the greatest of the apostles, what possible difference does that make regarding the rank or respect of the persons that followed Peter?
Assuming the supremacy of Peter among the apostles
1,605 Views |
74 Replies |
Last: 20 yr ago by
It's not that Peter is considered "greater" of the apostles. There's just "room" enough to reason from conversations in the bible that Jesus gave him a leadership position amongst them.
quote:
There's just "room" enough to reason from conversations in the bible that Jesus gave him a leadership position amongst them.
i wonder about that. cause Jesus never told Paul that he should contact peter or answer to peter for any of the work paul was going to do.
Thank you, rjhtamu, but that misses the point of my post.
Assume for the purposes of discussion that Jesus gave Peter a leadership role among the apostles, again, what does that have to do with any leaders who followed him?
[This message has been edited by Fightin TX Aggie (edited 4/21/2005 3:40p).]
Assume for the purposes of discussion that Jesus gave Peter a leadership role among the apostles, again, what does that have to do with any leaders who followed him?
[This message has been edited by Fightin TX Aggie (edited 4/21/2005 3:40p).]
Good point. One would have to establish two things: 1)Apostolic succession, and 2)Apostolic succession meant the successor had the same authority and/or gifts as the original Apostle.
-Denny Crane-
-Denny Crane-
gordanvucko,
But he DID feel he needed to contact Peter, James and the other assembled when considering a new approach. Did not strike off on his own.
The arguments for any kind of papal primacy (and I say primacy because a somewhat sound argument can at least be put together that it was never to be unilateral or monarchial) involve careful review of the views and practices of the church moving forward from Pentecost.
Its best first to settle within one's own mind, as to whether transmitted offices of teaching at all were first established. The Orthodox for example, never disputed that, a cornerstone of their own authority. Only how much Rome appeared to accumulate or aggrandize to herself over the centuries.
quote:
i wonder about that. cause Jesus never told Paul that he should contact peter or answer to peter for any of the work paul was going to do.
But he DID feel he needed to contact Peter, James and the other assembled when considering a new approach. Did not strike off on his own.
The arguments for any kind of papal primacy (and I say primacy because a somewhat sound argument can at least be put together that it was never to be unilateral or monarchial) involve careful review of the views and practices of the church moving forward from Pentecost.
Its best first to settle within one's own mind, as to whether transmitted offices of teaching at all were first established. The Orthodox for example, never disputed that, a cornerstone of their own authority. Only how much Rome appeared to accumulate or aggrandize to herself over the centuries.
Peter was the rock, as early Christian leaders understood well.
Here are a collection of quotes attesting to this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009frs.asp
My favorites:
Irenaeus
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Ambrose
They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heave" [Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today? (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . ." [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus. . . . (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Here are a collection of quotes attesting to this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009frs.asp
My favorites:
Irenaeus
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Ambrose
They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heave" [Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today? (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . ." [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus. . . . (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Right. You have to believe in the authority of the church first, and the fact that Jesus said and did many things that are not in the Bible. I don't think the catholic church has any need to justify the succession with the Bible alone.
I am not a catholic of course, but I probably make similar assumptions when I read the bible--I would think something along the lines of "Peter was the senior apostle, so Paul probably deferred to him and took his direction from him, even if we have no good record of this occurring".
I am not a catholic of course, but I probably make similar assumptions when I read the bible--I would think something along the lines of "Peter was the senior apostle, so Paul probably deferred to him and took his direction from him, even if we have no good record of this occurring".
Granting the assumption stated at the top of the thread, there still is no reason to assume that the annointing upon Peter was intended as a positional annointing that would flow with the office as opposed to residing in the man.
Even assuming the annointing was positional as opposed to personal, there is no reason to assume the annointing remained when the office changed, beginning with Constantine and continuing through the Dark Ages, through the Reformation and to this day.
Even assuming that the annointing was positional and intended as enduring despite changes in the office, there is no reason to assume that the annointing remained when unrepetent sinners assumed the position.
Even assuming the annointing was positional as opposed to personal, there is no reason to assume the annointing remained when the office changed, beginning with Constantine and continuing through the Dark Ages, through the Reformation and to this day.
Even assuming that the annointing was positional and intended as enduring despite changes in the office, there is no reason to assume that the annointing remained when unrepetent sinners assumed the position.
Why did Rome inherit the "prestige" of supremacy carried by the Petrine succession and not Antioch? Peter founded the Church in Antioch, consecrating its bishop when he left for Rome. Antioch predates Rome as a significant Christian city...according to the Acts it is the first place that the followers of Christ were called Christians. Could it be that the influence of Rome was not only due to its Petrine succession, but also its status as the seat of the Empire?
edit:inserted inadvertently omitted "by"
[This message has been edited by HornByChoice (edited 4/21/2005 8:58p).]
edit:inserted inadvertently omitted "by"
[This message has been edited by HornByChoice (edited 4/21/2005 8:58p).]
No, it was where Peter was crucified upside down that determined where the Vatican was built. His tomb is directly below the main altar in the Vatican.
That's the tradition, but where is the proof?
It's right under the altar in the Vatican. Go see for yourself. The bones indicate that the victim was indeed crucified upside down, along with the words "Here lies Peter".
So the Supremacy of Rome comes from the fact that Peter is buried there, not from the Petrine succession maintained by the Pope of Rome?
I think the Catholic Catechism would disagree with that.
I think the Catholic Catechism would disagree with that.
No, that's why the HQ of the Catholic Church is in Rome, not Antioch..
73, seeing as how the earliest reference to Peter in Rome oocurred hundreds of years after the event, unprovenanced bones and graffitti hardly constitute proof. For all we know, the bones belong to Brutus Octavius, and Kilroy wrote the inscription. I asked for proof, not tradition.
Good thing you're not discussing King David!
Bulldog73,
On its face no, but all of the early church agreed that it was so. That counts for something. For Peter and the others.
The Constantine thing is a red-herring. Its based on too much bad history about the period passing around now. How about I spot you that it is concecivable the lampstand moved by the Reformation, a major concession?
That's easier. For that too, was the belief of the early church. Apostolicity was not affected by behavior. Only doctrinal heresy raised questions. And even then, since ordinarily three were involved in the ordination, it was not felt likely to be disrupt.
Wait, quick addendum: just saw this:
No! The earliest reference occurs only three decades after the event, given in writing by by a man who knew Peter personally, and at a time when both Christian and Roman survivors of the July '64 persecution were still running around to affirm it. Clement's letters, as third Bishop of Rome, mention this rather strongly. There are many others, all well before "hundreds of years". This is what I mean by alot of bad surface history is being spread around. Especially by the scoffers, and sometimes it is believed by the general public. I am sure you read that somewhere, but the probable historicity of Peter's martyrdom there is not seriously doubted.
HornByChoice,
Excellent question. But not, the earliest traditions make clear that it was not the status of the capital, but more the double martyrdom of Peter and Paul (Peter's method of martyrdom even being referred to by Christ in John 15, and this taken as significant where he died).
There was in fact another contender, even more obvious: Jerusalem, so Antioch was still second. Again, what is important here is that Antioch accepted the general primacy, even before persecutions were lifted.
On its face though, your question is sound. That's why just looking at how they did see it is important. If we work retroactively on all things, we can come up with `more logical' choices, like Jerusalem, or Antioch.
But you know, given that double-martyrdom, and who they were, and the why ---- it makes perfect sense. (Remember what you said on the Orthodox thread) It makes sense as the grounds for the siting of the arbiter primacy office, without pressing claims beyond that.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 4/21/2005 10:15p).]
quote:
Granting the assumption stated at the top of the thread, there still is no reason to assume that the annointing upon Peter was intended as a positional annointing that would flow with the office as opposed to residing in the man.
On its face no, but all of the early church agreed that it was so. That counts for something. For Peter and the others.
quote:
Even assuming the annointing was positional as opposed to personal, there is no reason to assume the annointing remained when the office changed, beginning with Constantine and continuing through the Dark Ages, through the Reformation and to this day.
The Constantine thing is a red-herring. Its based on too much bad history about the period passing around now. How about I spot you that it is concecivable the lampstand moved by the Reformation, a major concession?
quote:
Even assuming that the annointing was positional and intended as enduring despite changes in the office, there is no reason to assume that the annointing remained when unrepetent sinners assumed the position.
That's easier. For that too, was the belief of the early church. Apostolicity was not affected by behavior. Only doctrinal heresy raised questions. And even then, since ordinarily three were involved in the ordination, it was not felt likely to be disrupt.
Wait, quick addendum: just saw this:
quote:
73, seeing as how the earliest reference to Peter in Rome oocurred hundreds of years after the event,
No! The earliest reference occurs only three decades after the event, given in writing by by a man who knew Peter personally, and at a time when both Christian and Roman survivors of the July '64 persecution were still running around to affirm it. Clement's letters, as third Bishop of Rome, mention this rather strongly. There are many others, all well before "hundreds of years". This is what I mean by alot of bad surface history is being spread around. Especially by the scoffers, and sometimes it is believed by the general public. I am sure you read that somewhere, but the probable historicity of Peter's martyrdom there is not seriously doubted.
HornByChoice,
quote:
Why did Rome inherit the "prestige" of supremacy carried by the Petrine succession and not Antioch? Peter founded the Church in Antioch, consecrating its bishop when he left for Rome. Antioch predates Rome as a significant Christian city...according to the Acts it is the first place that the followers of Christ were called Christians. Could it be that the influence of Rome was not only due to its Petrine succession, but also its status as the seat of the Empire?
Excellent question. But not, the earliest traditions make clear that it was not the status of the capital, but more the double martyrdom of Peter and Paul (Peter's method of martyrdom even being referred to by Christ in John 15, and this taken as significant where he died).
There was in fact another contender, even more obvious: Jerusalem, so Antioch was still second. Again, what is important here is that Antioch accepted the general primacy, even before persecutions were lifted.
On its face though, your question is sound. That's why just looking at how they did see it is important. If we work retroactively on all things, we can come up with `more logical' choices, like Jerusalem, or Antioch.
But you know, given that double-martyrdom, and who they were, and the why ---- it makes perfect sense. (Remember what you said on the Orthodox thread) It makes sense as the grounds for the siting of the arbiter primacy office, without pressing claims beyond that.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 4/21/2005 10:15p).]
quote:
On its face no, but all of the early church agreed that it was so. That counts for something. For Peter and the others.
All of the early church did not agree that the Roman Catholic church was the universal church!
http://www.christiantruth.com/stephenray.html
The Roman Catholic has been around for a long time but it is not the "universal" church and declaring the Pope a successor to Peter does not make it so. If Roman Catholics really believe that the Roman Catholic church is the one and only "universal" church why did Pope John Paul II make the statement that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God? How can that be?
Because God is God.
Those who earnestly seek Him find Him. John Paul never equated Allah with Jesus - very far from it - Crossing the Threshold of Hope makes this point clearly, in a short book.
He said and wrote, often, that Christ is the way for salvation.
These are not in conflict.
Those who earnestly seek Him find Him. John Paul never equated Allah with Jesus - very far from it - Crossing the Threshold of Hope makes this point clearly, in a short book.
He said and wrote, often, that Christ is the way for salvation.
These are not in conflict.
Redstone, are you saying that Allah is the same God described in the New Testament?
A&O,
I didn't say that. I said
They agred in the transmitted offices.
There was NO "Roman Catholic Church" till the 9th century at the earliest. Its the CATHOLIC church, the very name "Orthodox" for the East was taken by them to stress that they thought they alone continued true to the common legacy .
Because maybe it didn't stay static . I am not saying it did, but maybe something *did* derail after the schism. I have averred to that possibility for discussion. IMO, all bets are off after 1204.
But it doesn't touch on what came before. There is a blindness to pre-Schism teachings to much of the polemic today.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 4/21/2005 10:48p).]
quote:
All of the early church did not agree that the Roman Catholic church was the universal church!
I didn't say that. I said
quote:
For Peter and the others.
They agred in the transmitted offices.
There was NO "Roman Catholic Church" till the 9th century at the earliest. Its the CATHOLIC church, the very name "Orthodox" for the East was taken by them to stress that they thought they alone continued true to the common legacy .
quote:
If Roman Catholics really believe that the Roman Catholic church is the one and only "universal" church why did Pope John Paul II make the statement that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God? How can that be?
Because maybe it didn't stay static . I am not saying it did, but maybe something *did* derail after the schism. I have averred to that possibility for discussion. IMO, all bets are off after 1204.
But it doesn't touch on what came before. There is a blindness to pre-Schism teachings to much of the polemic today.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 4/21/2005 10:48p).]
No, and neither did John Paul.
Here is the statement in question.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2MUSLM.HTM
While mentioning the point on which Christians and Muslims most differ, the mystery of the Trinity, the Pope also said that the two traditions "have a long history of study, philosophical and theological reflection, literature and science, which have left their mark on Eastern and Western cultures", and "are called in one spirit of love to defend and always promote human dignity, moral values and freedom".
Here is the statement in question.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2MUSLM.HTM
While mentioning the point on which Christians and Muslims most differ, the mystery of the Trinity, the Pope also said that the two traditions "have a long history of study, philosophical and theological reflection, literature and science, which have left their mark on Eastern and Western cultures", and "are called in one spirit of love to defend and always promote human dignity, moral values and freedom".
quote:
There was NO "Roman Catholic Church" till the 9th century at the earliest.
That's my whole point. Just what does the term "universal" church mean? There are several ideas on that subject, but to say that the Roman Catholic church of today is the "universal" church defies logic not to mention Scripture!
First, Christ called for unity, and universality - telling as many people as possible - the reason Thomas went to India, Mark to Egypt, Paul all over - and so on.
Second, because it is the only truly global institution that has ever existed - it is universal. The mass of Nigeria is not funamentally different than New York City or Manila, and the teachings certainly aren't, assuming you have a good Bishop, which unfortunately is never a given.
Second, because it is the only truly global institution that has ever existed - it is universal. The mass of Nigeria is not funamentally different than New York City or Manila, and the teachings certainly aren't, assuming you have a good Bishop, which unfortunately is never a given.
Thanks for the link Redstone, I didn't have a link for his statement. But let me ask you about this statement:
I understand what the Pope is trying to do here, but God was here before the foundation of the world, and as Christ said, I and the Father are ONE. If you do not recognize Christ how can Allah be the same God of the New Testament. No doubt the Muslims think he is God, but how can a Christian state that Allah is the SAME God of the New Testament?
quote:
We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: "We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection" (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497).
I understand what the Pope is trying to do here, but God was here before the foundation of the world, and as Christ said, I and the Father are ONE. If you do not recognize Christ how can Allah be the same God of the New Testament. No doubt the Muslims think he is God, but how can a Christian state that Allah is the SAME God of the New Testament?
But Redstone was titan wrong then? He stated that there was no Roman Catholic church until the 9th Century?
A&O,
The whole church open to those who believe -- that term had become current long before the big schisms.
No, its simply because the Catholic (Roman) Church of the West is one part of that former "Universal" along with the Catholic (Orthodox) Church of the East. When you take into account that each accuses the other of deviation, its still `logical' that the claim is made, the title Catholic, for the whole world, retained.
quote:
That's my whole point. Just what does the term "universal" church mean?
The whole church open to those who believe -- that term had become current long before the big schisms.
quote:
There are several ideas on that subject, but to say that the Roman Catholic church of today is the "universal" church defies logic not to mention Scripture!
No, its simply because the Catholic (Roman) Church of the West is one part of that former "Universal" along with the Catholic (Orthodox) Church of the East. When you take into account that each accuses the other of deviation, its still `logical' that the claim is made, the title Catholic, for the whole world, retained.
http://www.the-highway.com/papacy_Webster.html
An interresting thing that Webster missed in his very detailed view of The Papacy and the Rock, was this little nugget. That Cyprian flat out denies that there even is such a thing as a pope.
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage.
An interresting thing that Webster missed in his very detailed view of The Papacy and the Rock, was this little nugget. That Cyprian flat out denies that there even is such a thing as a pope.
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage.
Titan, how can there be two "universal" churches?
That's an excellent question, and it is something that has puzzled me.
Reading his other words in the statement, and certainly the book I mentioned, points to his speaking of Jesus Christ, not Allah.
This is part political nicety, which he also did with the Jews, and part theological imprint - there is one God, the God of the New and Old Testament, and He will be worshipped. This can be done through Islam and Judiasm by the open and seeking heart, but not with a rejection of Jesus Christ.
Reading his other words in the statement, and certainly the book I mentioned, points to his speaking of Jesus Christ, not Allah.
This is part political nicety, which he also did with the Jews, and part theological imprint - there is one God, the God of the New and Old Testament, and He will be worshipped. This can be done through Islam and Judiasm by the open and seeking heart, but not with a rejection of Jesus Christ.
A&O,
From above, there can't. But in each's mind, its easy.
Of course a better way to reconcile it is to realize that points of separation are not like the difference between a Mormon and Reformed or a Jehovah's Witness.
They are not hopelessly deep --- most are tied to how they view jurisdiction. One could argue they are not really separate at all -- its what I do like about the "two lung" analogy. They are semi-autonomous, but stuck in the same body.
(With all due note of HornByChoice's proposal for a 5-spoke wheel analogy, which is even less misleading for the early period).
quote:
Titan, how can there be two "universal" churches?
From above, there can't. But in each's mind, its easy.
Of course a better way to reconcile it is to realize that points of separation are not like the difference between a Mormon and Reformed or a Jehovah's Witness.
They are not hopelessly deep --- most are tied to how they view jurisdiction. One could argue they are not really separate at all -- its what I do like about the "two lung" analogy. They are semi-autonomous, but stuck in the same body.
(With all due note of HornByChoice's proposal for a 5-spoke wheel analogy, which is even less misleading for the early period).
Redstone, I do appreciate what you're trying to do, but there is absolutely no way that Allah can be the God of the New Testament IF we accept the New Testament as the Word of God Almighty! It's an impossibility and how can we be faithful to Christ if we tell Muslims that their God and our God is one and the same?
Its possible that the East and the West can be united - which would be a great cause for joy and celebration - because much progress was made under John Paul. The unthinkable is no longer so, and talks continue, and will for a century or more I imagine.
The sticking point will be Russia, and their Orthodox Church. The political leadership there has long been deeply tied to the Church, often under the destructive banner of hyper-nationalism (although for a century of course extremism the other way.)
The sticking point will be Russia, and their Orthodox Church. The political leadership there has long been deeply tied to the Church, often under the destructive banner of hyper-nationalism (although for a century of course extremism the other way.)
The quote
"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: "We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection" (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497).
is not granting Allah anything. He said we believe in the same God (God monotheistic - a point also made strongly in dialogue with Jews).
"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: "We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection" (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497).
is not granting Allah anything. He said we believe in the same God (God monotheistic - a point also made strongly in dialogue with Jews).
Featured Stories
See All
Blue Bell Park set for highly-anticipated return
by Richard Zane
Reed diligently working to solve his turnover 'problem'
by Olin Buchanan
61:04
10h ago
1.7k
B-Team: Lone Star Showdown trivia, prepping for the weekend & more
by Ryan Brauninger
Spring Football Snippets: Practice No. 10
by Olin Buchanan
30:16
14h ago
1.9k