Peter the Prime Minister

[Wigglesworth]

Wigglesworth,

I am in agreement with you on every point except the Bishop of Rome, where, once again, I believe the EO view to be consistent with the early, undivided church, before the modern, developed papacy.

I'd like to hear more about your position on the papacy.

. . .

Please be assurred that I am asking a question in order to learn, and to continue the excellent dialogue that seems to be developing here; not in any way to criticize your position.

Michael

It seems to me, based upon scripture and the church fathers, that Peter was the prime minister of the church. As I understand it, Peter deliberately passed on this office to his successor in Rome. Since that time, the whole church recognized Rome to be the See of Peter, the prime minister of the church.

The argument that Rome is no different than Antioch, because Peter established both churches, is false. Peter may have ordained men to lead the church in Antioch or elsewhere. However, what Peter passed on in Rome was his office of prime minister. That would not have changed if he had started 1,000 churches in other cities prior to his repose in Rome.

I recommend The Catholic Controversy (http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Controversy-Francis-Sales-Defense/dp/0895553872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209134087&sr=1-1)by St. Francis de Sales for the details.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[SirTimothy]

Where is the Biblical evidence of Peter passing that on? Apocryphal sources in tradition mean absolute baloney. Heck, we don't even have a biblical source that says Peter ever even WENT to Rome, let alone anything else...

Tim

[IowaLutheran]

It seems to me, based upon scripture and the church fathers, that Peter was the prime minister of the church. As I understand it, Peter deliberately passed on this office to his successor in Rome. Since that time, the whole church recognized Rome to be the See of Peter, the prime minister of the church.

The argument that Rome is no different than Antioch, because Peter established both churches, is false. Peter may have ordained men to lead the church in Antioch or elsewhere. However, what Peter passed on in Rome was his office of prime minister. That would not have changed if he had started 1,000 churches in other cities prior to his repose in Rome.

I recommend The Catholic Controversy (http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Controversy-Francis-Sales-Defense/dp/0895553872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209134087&sr=1-1)by St. Francis de Sales for the details.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

I would be interested in your take on Galatians 2 and Acts 15. The former would seem to indicate that Paul was the prime minister to the gentile church, and the latter would indicate that James was the prime minister at the Council of Jerusalem, which included Peter.

[Wigglesworth]

Where is the Biblical evidence of Peter passing that on? Apocryphal sources in tradition mean absolute baloney. Heck, we don't even have a biblical source that says Peter ever even WENT to Rome, let alone anything else...

Tim

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The simple answer is that things have happened after the books of the Bible were written, and things happened that were not written in the Bible.

If one does not accept Holy Tradition, then there is no reason to accept Holy Scripture. There were bishops before there were Bibles. If we are not to care what the bishops have said, why should we care about what books they chose to call Holy Scripture?

There are no Chicken McNuggets in the Bible, but I believe I ate them for lunch. I reject the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for this reason.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

I would be interested in your take on Galatians 2 and Acts 15. The former would seem to indicate that Paul was the prime minister to the gentile church, and the latter would indicate that James was the prime minister at the Council of Jerusalem, which included Peter.

To begin, there is only one prime minister at a time. That's what makes him "prime."

In Acts 15:7, Peter actually says that he was chosen to preach to the Gentiles. Paul was given the responsibility of preaching to the Gentiles as well in Galatians 2:7. I suppose there were enough Gentiles to go around. They could both preach to them, and Peter could later focus on preaching to Jews. This does not diminish Peter's calling or ministry.

What I see in Acts 15 is Paul and Barnabas appealing to Apostolic authority in Jerusalem to settle the question of circumcision for converts who were Gentiles. We know from Holy Tradition that James was to become the bishop of Jerusalem, but this does not diminish Peter's calling or ministry. It would be nice to have a transcript of the entire Jerusalem Council, but I suspect we only have the summary in Acts 15.

Again in Galatians 2:2-3, what I see is Paul seeking approval from Apostolic authority in Jerusalem for his ministry. "I wanted to make sure they did not disagree, or my ministry would have been useless." (Galatians 2:2 NLT). This is significant that Paul thought his ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit could have been rendered useless if the Apostles disapproved it.

These two chapters establish that Paul respected the decisions made by the Apostles in Jerusalem. I see nothing in them that would diminish Peter's office.

[SirTimothy]

If (and it's a big if) Peter was the Prime Minister, what right does a bunch of other bishops have to elect his successor anyhow?

I'm sorry, the whole doctrine of anything other than leadership from the top with a prime minister seems so anti-scriptural that I just cannot stand it. Jesus taught about servant leadership. The last being first and the first being last in his kingdom. I see no Biblical evidence of his establishing his church on authoritarian lines, therefore I can accept the idea of Peter, perhaps having some special qualities as an individual that Jesus saw and prepared him for a more prominent preaching position within the church inspired by the Holy Spirit, but anything else is pure hot-air produced by an arrogant church in Rome because they wanted to remain top-dog in God's Kingdom as well as earthly, and that, as far as I'm concerned is the long and short of it.

Tim

[IowaLutheran]

Wigglesworth - What is the distinction you are making then, between the Bishop of Rome being the prime minister of the church and the way the Roman Catholic Church currently understands the papacy? (I'm assuming you must be making some distinction or else you would be RC instead of PNCC).

[IowaLutheran]

BTW, I do appreciate your comments and input. I am currently struggling with the office of the papacy because, like Father RJ Neuhaus (Lutheran convert) has said, Lutherans should wake up each day and wonder why they are not Catholic.

Also, I seem to recall we share a common profession in the law. Where I am at with regard to those texts (Galatians, Acts, etc.) is that a rationale person such as yourself may be able to explain why it does not undercut the status of Peter, but I look at it in legal terms. If I were to become RC, I would need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the way the RC currently understand the office of the papacy is true and correct. And with those Biblical texts, as well as the ECF writings, not providing that kind of resounding authority, I remain a Catholic-oriented Lutheran.

[Adammi]

what right does a bunch of other bishops have to elect his successor anyhow?
I suppose the same right that was taken to select Judas's successor.

[Wigglesworth]

. . . Jesus taught about servant leadership. The last being first and the first being last in his kingdom. I see no Biblical evidence of his establishing his church on authoritarian lines . . .

This is why I used the term Prime Minister. A minister is a servant. Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep." This is where I see Peter being told to be the servant to the whole flock.


. . . anything else is pure hot-air produced by an arrogant church in Rome because they wanted to remain top-dog in God's Kingdom as well as earthly, and that, as far as I'm concerned is the long and short of it.


It seems to me that many early church fathers would disagree with you on this point. I can only ask you to consider even the Eastern Orthodox sources who would be less "tainted" by Roman influence.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

Wigglesworth - What is the distinction you are making then, between the Bishop of Rome being the prime minister of the church and the way the Roman Catholic Church currently understands the papacy? (I'm assuming you must be making some distinction or else you would be RC instead of PNCC).

Good question.

Roman practice has turned the papacy into something unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox, who had accepted the special position of the See of Peter in the past. Perhaps the practice of the papacy has been the problem, while the office has maintained the same legitimate authority that was exercised in the early centuries by Clement and others.

In the eyes of the EO, Rome claims more power for the papacy than it legimately has. In the eyes of the RC, the Pope is the monarch of the universal church with direct authority over all other bishops. (This point has made me wonder whether all RC diocesan bishops in the USA are actually missionaries from Rome, in contrast to the early church position that there is one bishop who has authority in each diocese to the exclusion of other bishops.)

Here's a down-home family example. If your dad beats you with a club for sleeping too late, he might be abusive, but he's still your dad. Maybe you should run away for a while, until he comes to his senses and settles down. He's still your dad, whether you stay home or not.

Perhaps the true statement of the authority of the Pope lies somewhere between the two positions in the great gulf between the EO and the RC. I will leave it to them to work that out. In the meantime, I will remain with my bishop in the PNCC. Both the EO and the RC maintain enough legalism and separatism that I find them too troubling to sign up.

[Wigglesworth]

BTW, I do appreciate your comments and input. I am currently struggling with the office of the papacy because, like Father RJ Neuhaus (Lutheran convert) has said, Lutherans should wake up each day and wonder why they are not Catholic.

Also, I seem to recall we share a common profession in the law. Where I am at with regard to those texts (Galatians, Acts, etc.) is that a rationale person such as yourself may be able to explain why it does not undercut the status of Peter, but I look at it in legal terms. If I were to become RC, I would need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the way the RC currently understand the office of the papacy is true and correct. And with those Biblical texts, as well as the ECF writings, not providing that kind of resounding authority, I remain a Catholic-oriented Lutheran.

Who's telling you to become RC? I'm not. What we should do is cleanse ourselves of heresy. :eek:

As far as legal analysis, please read The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales. He was actually trained as a lawyer. The book is the "brief" that converted 70,000 Calvinists to the Catholic Church.

You are talking about two different things: (1) the status of Peter, and (2) the current doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Rome is correct about everything today. This is why I study the counterarguments of Orthodoxy. Where Orthdoxy and Rome agree, I see no reason to argue with them, whether I understand it with my mind or not.

Consider this: Rome teaches that when you receive the Eucharist in the Roman church, you are making the statement that you believe ALL that the Roman church teaches. However, members of the PNCC are specifically allowed to receive the RC Eucharist, even though the PNCC obviously does not believe ALL the Roman church teaches. I am not RC, because I, along with the Eastern Orthodox, have not accepted ALL that Rome teaches. It is possible, according to Rome, to not be RC but still be "sufficiently catholic" in their opinion to share their sacraments. My legal mind hasn't made sense out of that yet.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[PadreEgan]

Some input into the discussion:

First, my opinion on Peter. Many scholars are not sure if Peter was ever in Rome, and those who feel that he was in Rome are not convinced it was a long term situation, as Peter should have planted a Church in the community and moved on.

Second, I read a book by Cardinal Jozef Ratzinger (yes the same one who is the Pope) and he stated that the Roman Catholic Church cannot expect the Orthodox Church to accept something they never had accepted in history, that is the Supreme Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Of course, now that he is Pope, I am sure his attitude has changed.

And as far as Biblical support for Peter not being anymore of an authority figure than the other Apostles, look no further than Acts 8:13; "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John." --> Now I ask, if Peter was the 'Pope' how come he was sent out, instead of him sending out.

I have no problem with recognizing the Bishop of Rome as first among equals, heck, I don't even have a problem with calling the Bishop of Rome "Pope" and saying he is the official spokesperson for Catholicism. But to say that anything less than what Rome wants you to believe is a detriment to your soul and salvation? Gimme a break.

Nevertheless, I pray for unity amongst the RCC and the PNCC.

[SirTimothy]

Here's a down-home family example. If your dad beats you with a club for sleeping too late, he might be abusive, but he's still your dad. Maybe you should run away for a while, until he comes to his senses and settles down. He's still your dad, whether you stay home or not.


No. As far as I (and the law of most western countries, by the way, I'm not alone) am concerned, an abusive parent negates their rights and claims of parenthood, and I am absolutely APALLED that you should use such an example. There is NEVER a valid reason for a parent to be abusive, and their being abusive means that they have abrogated their rights to be parents and the child should be removed and placed with new parents.

Tim

[Wigglesworth]

No. As far as I (and the law of most western countries, by the way, I'm not alone) am concerned, an abusive parent negates their rights and claims of parenthood, and I am absolutely APALLED that you should use such an example. There is NEVER a valid reason for a parent to be abusive, and their being abusive means that they have abrogated their rights to be parents and the child should be removed and placed with new parents.

Tim

Please forgive me for appalling you. I did not expect my post to generate your response.

To clarify, I do not suggest that there is a valid reason for being abusive. To the contrary, the point that I tried to make was that, even if someone abuses his position of authority, he remains who he is. His identity has not changed. I do not try to justify an abusive parent, as I do not try to justify abuse of authority by a bishop. After all, Roman Catholics themselves believe that some of their Popes may be in Hell. They were still Popes.

As far as the law on an abusive parent is concerned, things work differently where I live than the way you have described. This is why we have children in "foster homes." Foster parents care for children who have been abused by natural or legal parents. The legal relationship between a parent and a child is not automatically terminated upon an abuse. It may be terminated in a court of law in some circumstances. On the other hand, the genetic, or blood, relationship between a parent and child is never terminated, and cannot be terminated by law. This seems to me to be a good analogy for describing some of the circumstances in our church today.

In the church, is a defrocked priest no longer a priest, or is he just a priest prohibited from exercising his office?

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

. . . Peter should have planted a Church in the community and moved on.
Why?

Second, I read a book by Cardinal Jozef Ratzinger (yes the same one who is the Pope) and he stated that the Roman Catholic Church cannot expect the Orthodox Church to accept something they never had accepted in history, that is the Supreme Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. . . .

And as far as Biblical support for Peter not being anymore of an authority figure than the other Apostles, look no further than Acts 8:13; "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John." --> Now I ask, if Peter was the 'Pope' how come he was sent out, instead of him sending out. . . .



Two different perspectives are noted here. From the perspective of one who accepts the "Supreme Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome," one might ask why Peter would be sent somewhere by the Apostolic college. From the perspective of one who accepts Peter as the servant of servants, perhaps it makes more sense. He went to feed the sheep.

It seems to me that there may be a distinction between what the office of Peter was in the past, and what the papacy has become. It may still remain that the Bishop of Rome presides in the See of Peter. We need not read into scripture "the modern Papacy" every time we consider the office of Peter. The Orthodox certainly do not.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[PadreEgan]

I like to think that James of Jerusalem was the first Christian Bishop.
:)

[Albion]

It seems to me, based upon scripture and the church fathers, that Peter was the prime minister of the church.

It would be helpful to this argument if there was, at that time, any such thing as a prime minister or if anyone had ever heard of such a thing.