The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 2 2005, 11:39 PM'] So it appears that another poster has opted out. Are there any who can address the question of Peter in Rome in a rational fashion, that is, an issue at a time, rather than in an emotional but undocumented fashion?

LittleLes [/quote]
I'm just waiting

[LittleLes]

Actually, you are correct. It isn't essential that Peter be in Rome to be pope. But it is essential to then determine his successor, if the claim is made that his successor bishops were "popes" as well.

And I think you are minimizing the Church's teaching that the sun revolved around the earth. The Church declared that it had correctly interpretes scripture and that the sun did. So, if as Trent trys to tell us, the Church always interprets scripture correctly, and it be maintained that, as an ecumenical council, Trent was infallible, we have an error in an infallible teaching.

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

This is the last time I'm going to post on this thread because its absolutely illogical to continue doing so. I may have said this before, nonetheless, this time I'm serious last time I let LL appeal to my emotions. For a Theologian thats an unforgiveable move and I apologise.

The fact of the matter is LL is out to prove that Peter did not travel to Rome and die there and that consequently the Papacy is not a valid institution and the Popes have not inherited the seat of Shebnah, Eliakim and Peter (Isa 22:19-25--Matt 16:13-20). It doesnt matter how much we argue. The fact that nobody in the Patristic period argued differently means nothing to him. The fact that I gave him the link to the current Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch website, who have an unbroken succession of Bishops back to Peter himself, and who state clearly that Peter left their city in 53AD means nothing to him. The fact that Rome's ascendency was unquestioned in 80AD when Pope St Clement wrote to Corith even though at the time one of the 'boanerges' St John the beloved disciple was alive at Ephesus, means nothing to him. I could go on and speak of the deference St Ignatius of Antioch pays to Rome as having taught others (Letter to the Romans, paragraph III) a clear confirmation of her teaching magisterium, and that St Irenaeus speaks in such glowing terms of her, that Tertullian does the same and so on and so forth all means nothing to him. Had Rome fabricated such a story everyone (particularly the Orthodox) would've pounced on that fact by now. However, that doesnt mean anything to LL.

LL came here for one purpose: To prove us wrong. He has no plans whatsoever to listen to us. Stop arguing with him, its useless I assure you. You're not going to convince him of anything because he cannot be convinced. Whatever we say he will find a reason not to believe it and this thread has illustrated this many times. Just let this discussion die, its pointless. He is not going to listen to any of us. Based on a posteriori logic to argue that the Roman claim was fabricated without any of the Fathers or St John the beloved disciple raising a whisker about it hardly plausible. However, LL isnt into debating the probability of his argument. He isnt into debating it at all. He wants our assent to it and he is not going to listen to any opposing statements no matter how well thought out.

Peach Cube, JJ, stop wasting your time perpetuating this useless argument. Anybody who looks objectively at the inductive evidence for the Papacy can easily conclude based on the early Christian testimony etc. that the claims are true. This is enhanced by the fact that the Churches with apostolic succession going back to those days accept these claims and always have since their Fathers, our Fathers were living and breathing. But LL isnt looking objectively at this. He does not want to believe in the validity of the Roman Church and thus if you want him to convert better to speak to God about him than him about God.

That is my last word on this subject and I should hope it should be everybody's also.

LL you cannot reinvent history you cannot after 20 centuries claim something so integrated into all of apostolic Christianity be it Catholic or Orthodox they somehow made a big error over. Your argument may have some plus points and were we living in a cultural vaccum it may actually be believable. However, we're not. We're living in a Church that has unbroken apostolic succession and a mass of inductive evidence in favour of its claims. Aside from grace your argument lacks plausibility and this is why you wont succeed amongst the knowledgeable with it. Perhaps some uncatechised cradle Catholics would buy it but the clientele here are slightly more clued up. This argument of yours simply isnt going to get you anywhere.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Myles

[jasJis]

Myles,
I understand your position. Sometimes I can't stand the purposeful ignorance of some 'debaters' and have to walk away, or not get involved in the argument. Sometimes though, I believe I can break down the arguments into basic points and shoot them down. It may not convince or change the purposefully ignorant and close minded, but sometimes it gives a good explanation to open minded people who have that question in mind. The key is to keep the questions and answers short. (Which is often tough for me.)

Les,
Why do you think it is essential to determine each 'successor' to Peter? Some things are defined by the existing facts of the matter. Peter obviously led a primary role in the Church Jesus established. That is obvious in Scripture. That there was a hierachy even among the Apostles is obvious in Scripture. That even after the Apostles, there was a hierachy in the Church members is obious in Scripture as well. The Pope is but a Bishop, but is the Bishop for the Bishops. The fact that it has been physically based in Rome is a geographic circumstance of human history and is meaningless on a spiritual level. It is not essential to determine the geographics of historical persons in the Church, only to establish the effective concept of the historical office in the Church.

As far as the Church's teaching about the sun. I am not minimizing the Church's position. You are giving it too much importance. The Church recognizes that Scripture is infallible when teaching about Faith and Morals and revealing the Will of God to Humanity. In that role, the Church is infallible. The Church (despite what many literalists believe, both Catholic and other Christians) does not declare Scripture or itself as being infallible accounts of historical and temporal facts. Big difference, Les.

[Archangel]

Good points, Myles and jasJis.

It would be a good idea for LittleLes to read about St. Peter: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV[/url]

and Pope St. Clement: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm[/url]

I also found another article regarding archeological evidence of Peter in Rome courtesy of the Reference Section: [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_74.htm"]http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_74.htm[/url]

[LittleLes]

Hi JasJis,

(1) You are actually digressing from the topic, but still suggesting a larger one that we might cover after the Peterine primacy issue. Did Jesus intend to found a Church at all?

(2) I'm afraid that the Church "always interprets scripture correctly" would fall squarely in the "faith and morals" area. Hence, the teaching of the Council of Trent, not the Galileo matter, is the "infallibility" issue involved. And if you read the documents of Vatican II, you will find that the Church has narrowed the range even further in which it claims to interpret scripture correctly to only "those things necessary for salvation." So the "faith and morals" claim has been superceded.

Hi Archangel,

I think you will find that the "Catholic Apologetics" article on Peter's tomb dates from a papal announcement made in 1968. Unfortunately, that seems to have been in error, as the Allen article notes.

LittleLes

[jasJis]

Les,
I'm not digressing from the topic. I'm trying to clarify the purpose of the subject because it's obvious, your purpose is disingenuous. Thanks for the clarification. Your primary purpose is to create doubt in people's mind so you can say the Jesus did not intend to establish a Church.

Your second point makes no sense. It's theo-babble.

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 3 2005, 05:57 PM']Hi Archangel,

I think you will find that the "Catholic Apologetics" article on Peter's tomb dates from a papal announcement made in 1968.  Unfortunately, that seems to have been in error, as the Allen article notes.

LittleLes[/quote]
Where is the error that the Allen article notes?

[Archangel]

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says that He will build His church:

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

[LittleLes]

Good morning JasJis,

Not theo-bable at all, but perhaps you don't want to deal with it. In short, the Church in an ecumenical council,, told us that it has been established to interpret scripoture, but it was in error in an interpretation, claiming that the earth did not move as stated in serveral Psalms.

Hi Archangel,

It seems you are anxious to argue a discussion on the founding of a church by Jesus. I think I can handle two different topics at the same time. However, I'll open a second thread to do so, probably starting today or tomorrow.

LittleLes

[jasJis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 4 2005, 07:28 AM'] Good morning JasJis,

Not theo-bable at all, but perhaps you don't want to deal with it. In short, the Church in an ecumenical council,, told us that it has been established to interpret scripoture, but it was in error in an interpretation, claiming that the earth did not move as stated in serveral Psalms. [/quote]
Les,
You overly simplified opinion of what the process and means of Church authority when it interprets Scripture is what's off the mark. I don't have any problem dealing with anything. I'm just more open minded and less blindly pendantic with my opinion. You are using an oversimlified 'straw-man' argument to discredit a complex issue. {ie, straining at the gnat to swallow the camel}

[LittleLes]

No JasJis,

Just making a statement of fact. Would you like other passages, clearly regarding morality, in which the Church's interpretation of scripture has been in error and was subsequently reversed?

Littleles

[jasJis]

Not fact, your biased opinion.

The Catholic Church can speak at many levels. When it speaks 'infallibly' it specifically tells us when it does. Every utterance from the many persons in the Church is not 'infallible'. Any clear thinking person can apply logic and reason and understand the hierarchy of facts and can tell the difference between Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline and know which can change, contradict, evolve, or never change or contradict.

Get a little Paul Harvey mindset and look for the 'rest of the story'.

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 4 2005, 03:28 AM']It seems you are anxious to argue a discussion on the founding of a church by Jesus.[/quote]
Huh? I only quoted one line from Matthew. If there's someone who is anxious to discuss Jesus' founding of His Church, it's you

[LittleLes]

Big error, Jas. There is no requirement that the church "tell us its speaking infallibly." For example, look up Vatican I's "Eternal Pastor" on papal ex cathedra statments. The requirements are listed and are "irreformable". There is absolutely no requirement that the Pope announce he's speaking infallibly.

See if you can find such a requirement for general councils. Bet you can't! []

But that's a common Catholic misconception.

LittleLes