Petrine primacy

[Knowledge3]

What do you know about this subject?

[xristos.anesti]

Petrine primacy is a general term used by those who have propensity towards admission that due to the fact that Christ promised the keys to St. Peter (Mt. 16,19.) and due to the fact that St. Peter was according to the holy tradition of the Church one of the leaders of the apostolic body - the Holy See of Rome has form of absolute primacy of power, absolute supremacy and supreme authority in the Church of Christ.

From this the XX (Vatican I) Ecumenical council (according to Latin reckoning) will draw the dogma of infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.

In the conclusion of the fourth chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor Aeternus, solemnly promulgated by Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council in 1870 declared the following:

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema".


This was subsequently re-affirmed by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the XXI (Vatican II) Ecumenical Council (according to the Latin reckoning) that was also a document on the Church itself, explicitly reaffirmed the definition of papal infallibility, so as to avoid any doubts, expressing this in the following words:

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.
(italics ex Wiki)


Many years.

[Albion]

What do you know about this subject?

Well, there are at least a half-dozen different threads running now on this Apostolic Churches forum on this very subject, so quite a bit can be learned by reading them.

[Knowledge3]

I struggle with Catholic claims and interpretations.

What I understand is the promise Christ made to Peter somehow translates into today's Catholic pope being the head of the whole Church?

[Globalnomad]

Define "head".

[Albion]

I struggle with Catholic claims and interpretations.

What I understand is the promise Christ made to Peter somehow translates into today's Catholic pope being the head of the whole Church?

That's correct. The Catholic pope does claim that he's the head of all Christians everywhere because of how Matt 16:18-19 is interpreted by his church. No other Christian church, with the exception of the Old Catholics who broke from the Roman Church over the additional doctrine of Papal INFALLIBILITY that was announced about 135 years ago, believes this. It is also worth knowing that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, did not himself claim to be the head of Christians everywhere on account of what Christ said to Peter, until four hundred years or so after Christ.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

As usual, I'm with the Anglicans and Orthodox on this one, though by a characteristically different route.

I do think, actually, that Peter (= Kepha) was appointed by Christ to lead the church and comissioned with its building. But 1. he already completed that task; the church in its fullness had established liturgies and bishops and doctrine by the time of Peter's death that have preserved through the centuries, 2. why do the bishops in Rome inherit that authority?

I think we should respect the bishop of Rome as the first among equals, but because of his succession of the see of Peter, Prince of Apostles and because of the historically important role of Rome in the preservation of Orthodoxy and Christendom. But infallibility? The inauthenticity of churches not in communion with him?

It's just not there.

[WarriorAngel]

Inherited because the Church always needs a shepherd....
OR otherwise Christ would not have passed on that role to Peter who was on earth, in the first place.

See, Christ could have said...I am the Shepherd, and I will feed my own sheep.

Nope nope...the ministry to 'feed' and to say instruct, was put on Peter.
SO if it was going to just end somewhere...it would have ended at Christ.

But apparently Christ was showing us that the shepherd who leads would be the one who is on earth with the sheep.

Know what I mean?

[Knowledge3]

Inherited because the Church always needs a shepherd....
OR otherwise Christ would not have passed on that role to Peter who was on earth, in the first place.

See, Christ could have said...I am the Shepherd, and I will feed my own sheep.

Nope nope...the ministry to 'feed' and to say instruct, was put on Peter.
SO if it was going to just end somewhere...it would have ended at Christ.

But apparently Christ was showing us that the shepherd who leads would be the one who is on earth with the sheep.

Know what I mean?

Do you believe that today's pope - HH Benedict XVI is given the same status and ministry as Peter?

[WarriorAngel]

Do you believe that today's pope - HH Benedict XVI is given the same status and ministry as Peter?

Yes, I do.

Just as the one who sat on Moses chair had all authority of the Jews, and Christ told the Jews to obey the Chair of Moses...even if they sinned, just do not sin as they do.

IE, God can and does work through sinful men.
Their judgements are between them and God...

But He leaves us an authority. He leaves us an instructor, and He leaves us His shepherds on earth.

WE cannot be without a shepherd who feeds the flock, or Christ would not have gave that position onto Peter.... but kept it Himself.

He didnt do that, did He?
Instead, He passed it on.

So as long as there is life on earth, the shepherd is necessary.

Tell me, what does 'Confirm thy brethren' mean?

> Luke 22 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=32&f=s#x)
31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Confirm
1.to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify: This report confirms my suspicions. 2.to acknowledge with definite assurance: Did the hotel confirm our room reservation? 3.to make valid or binding by some formal or legal act; sanction; ratify: to confirm a treaty; to confirm her appointment to the Supreme Court. 4.to make firm or more firm; add strength to; settle or establish firmly: Their support confirmed my determination to run for mayor. 5.to strengthen (a person) in habit, resolution, opinion, etc.: The accident confirmed him in his fear of driving. 6.to administer the religious rite of confirmation to.

[Globalnomad]

Do you believe that today's pope - HH Benedict XVI is given the same status and ministry as Peter?
I believe that, too, actually. But I think the more important question is, just WHAT authority did Peter have?

I'll stick my head out and advance the opinion that, if the Orthodox today refuse the idea of giving the Bishop of Rome the same authority as Peter, it's not that they are against the principle (I think that if we do a better reserach into the murky records of the first centuries, we do find that the Bishop of Rome was indeed always given that status) - but because during the course of the centuries, the Pope of Rome assumed too much power in the name of that status.

I think in the end, we have to look towards a solution where the Bishop of Rome retains a special status as successor of Peter, while giving up some of the prerogatives he claims today.

But I repeat - the question is, just what status and how much authority did Peter have?

[Albion]

As usual, I'm with the Anglicans and Orthodox on this one, though by a characteristically different route.

I do think, actually, that Peter (= Kepha) was appointed by Christ to lead the church and comissioned with its building. But 1. he already completed that task; the church in its fullness had established liturgies and bishops and doctrine by the time of Peter's death that have preserved through the centuries, 2. why do the bishops in Rome inherit that authority?

I think we should respect the bishop of Rome as the first among equals, but because of his succession of the see of Peter, Prince of Apostles and because of the historically important role of Rome in the preservation of Orthodoxy and Christendom. But infallibility? The inauthenticity of churches not in communion with him?

It's just not there.

Well, that doesn't see to me to be a different route from that travelled by Anglicans or the Orthodox. It amplifies the issue but is not anything we wouldn't say ourselves.

The problem is that there are so many assumptions made regarding the bishop of Rome that we don't discuss all of them at once. The claims made for Peter's role are one thing...and then the claims made for later bishops of Rome are another...and then we have the additional claims made at Vatican I.

[WarriorAngel]

I believe that, too, actually. But I think the more important question is, just WHAT authority did Peter have?

I'll stick my head out and advance the opinion that, if the Orthodox today refuse the idea of giving the Bishop of Rome the same authority as Peter, it's not that they are against the principle (I think that if we do a better reserach into the murky records of the first centuries, we do find that the Bishop of Rome was indeed always given that status) - but because during the course of the centuries, the Pope of Rome assumed too much power in the name of that status.

I think in the end, we have to look towards a solution where the Bishop of Rome retains a special status as successor of Peter, while giving up some of the prerogatives he claims today.

But I repeat - the question is, just what status and how much authority did Peter have?

The question is....
How many people were under Peter then as
compared to today...?

The answer becomes, the Pope has
a bigger Church and a wider authority
base today than when Peter lived.
The Pope has more to overcome
now than Peter did.

Peter said it, no one disputed it.
Today's Pope says it and we
have to have media sources,
critics, hederodox laity and
priests and Bishops deny it....

SO lets put it this way...
PETER had alot more authority
than ppl today give credit for.

The vast differences
are obedience.
Today everyone is
their own legislative pope.
And few believe in the
concept of absolute obedience.

More ppl, more pride.

IF the world treated
the Pope as Peter was
treated...with utmost respect,
we would have alot less problems.

Well, that doesn't see to me to be a different route from that travelled by Anglicans or the Orthodox. It amplifies the issue but is not anything we wouldn't say ourselves.

The problem is that there are so many assumptions made regarding the bishop of Rome that we don't discuss all of them at once. The claims made for Peter's role are one thing...and then the claims made for later bishops of Rome are another...and then we have the additional claims made at Vatican I.

I suggest the opposite.

The problem is the assumptions
of the sheep.
Not the shepherd.

Who leads the sheep?
The sheep?
Or the one left to
shepherd and guard them?

[Albion]

Well, that doesn't see to me to be a different route from that travelled by Anglicans or the Orthodox. It amplifies the issue but is not anything we wouldn't say ourselves.

The problem is that there are so many assumptions made regarding the bishop of Rome that we don't discuss all of them at once. The claims made for Peter's role are one thing...and then the claims made for later bishops of Rome are another...and then we have the additional claims made at Vatican I.

Warrior Angel: I suggest the opposite...The problem is the assumptions
of the sheep.
Not the shepherd.

Well, I take it that you are objecting to what I agreed to but didn't say myself (I do think, actually, that Peter (= Kepha) was appointed by Christ to lead the church and comissioned with its building. But 1. he already completed that task.)

But this has nothing to do with feeding sheep. It is related rather to claims centering upon Jesus' words about Peter being one upon whom his church would be built.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Peter said it, no one disputed it.

Well, you know, except Paul. To his face. In front of everyone.

[WarriorAngel]

Well, you know, except Paul. To his face. In front of everyone.

Nope, Paul did NOT dispuet anything Peter said.

Paul disputed that since Peter was the leader, his actions had to be in line with what he was teaching.

Peter taught that it was not necessary to follow the laws, and to be circumcised...
But he was more mindful of hanging with the Jews which gave the Gentiles mixed signals.

THAT is not the same as Peter saying something, and ppl disputing it.

[WarriorAngel]

Well, I take it that you are objecting to what I agreed to but didn't say myself (I do think, actually, that Peter (= Kepha) was appointed by Christ to lead the church and comissioned with its building. But 1. he already completed that task.)

But this has nothing to do with feeding sheep. It is related rather to claims centering upon Jesus' words about Peter being one upon whom his church would be built.
According to this theory, Apostolic succession is neither necessary nor possible.

[Albion]

According to this theory, Apostolic succession is neither necessary nor possible.

Then that is your own mistaken conclusion. The fact that Peter converted the people on Pentecost and that this is what Christ designated him to do, has absolutely nothing to do with Apostolic Succession one way or the other.

[Globalnomad]

I believe that, too, actually. But I think the more important question is, just WHAT authority did Peter have?

I'll stick my head out and advance the opinion that, if the Orthodox today refuse the idea of giving the Bishop of Rome the same authority as Peter, it's not that they are against the principle (I think that if we do a better reserach into the murky records of the first centuries, we do find that the Bishop of Rome was indeed always given that status) - but because during the course of the centuries, the Pope of Rome assumed too much power in the name of that status.

I think in the end, we have to look towards a solution where the Bishop of Rome retains a special status as successor of Peter, while giving up some of the prerogatives he claims today.

But I repeat - the question is, just what status and how much authority did Peter have?
Bump to repeat my question. (Sorry Warrior Angel, I am not satisfied with your analysis. Respect is not an issue, laws and rules are. Every Patriarch, not only Peter, has more souls and more problems than the Apostles had. And I am not sure we have any evidence that Peter had as much theological and administrative authority that today's Popes have. That is why I am asking.

[Albion]

Bump to repeat my question. (Sorry Warrior Angel, I am not satisfied with your analysis. Respect is not an issue, laws and rules are. Every Patriarch, not only Peter, has more souls and more problems than the Apostles had. And I am not sure we have any evidence that Peter had as much theological and administrative authority that today's Popes have. That is why I am asking.

Are you sure you aren't attempting to get blood out of a turnip? I mean, there is no documentary evidence aside from the NT that shows us anything about Peter's role, how he may have behaved, or how others related to him. The RCC makes its case on an interpretation of the few verses you are already familiar with, and no Catholic is about to admit that that interpretation is wrong. Meanwhile, everyone else has offered here the alternative view, with reasons for it.

[Knowledge3]

[edit]

[Knowledge3]

[moved]