Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer; johngrace
Not intending this as direct commentary on anyone's announcement of past RC 'popes' being declared saints;

There in Matthew 18 the quotation or verse (verse 18) which you bring was not addressed to Peter specifically or alone, for Christ is seen there to be speaking to them all directly, corporately together, all of them at once, having rather also disestablished at that point (prior to verse 19, also!) that "the church" be Peter alone despite what can be said as to his "rocky-ness" even if WE here in discussion be limiting that (alone) consideration to discussion of authority flowing from or through Peter (alone) to each of the rest of the assembled disciples.

This was much more the original and earliest sense of the church -- as to how the binding and loosening spoken of would function.

Claims to there having been established a singular papacy, one over all the rest --- did not arise until centuries later, taking many more centuries to more fully develop (in the minds of some, with it developing in the minds of those of Rome -- but not much elsewhere).

Effort to make excuse for having done so (not that either of you which I address this reply here on this thread have done so) by pointing towards what conciliatory elements there can be found within papal system, still ignores such as verses 16 & 17 in that same chapter, and very much verse 19, for by the sense which can be gathered from the chapter more widely --- Rome alone (successors there) was never in earliest times "the church" alone (or the singular "rock" alone) or considered having the one bishopric to which all others must unilaterally yield, or else chapter 18 of the Gospel of Matthew becomes distorted if not undone.

Can you see it? It can be found (in addition to elsewhere in scripture) in the earliest writings of church note-worthies (Early Church Fathers, as Schaff and others referred to those) -- with many times in those places when Peter alone is being spoken of, it not be in additional context of Peter alone having been authorized with the same binding and loosening, as is found in the very chapter which you have pointed towards. Yet rather; when those ECF's wrote of Peter, it was as his being or serving as example of what the church universally held, with this again -- not contemplated that those powers of true spiritual authority to then being funneled singularly through successor's of one "church office" of bishopric, more than or ABOVE all others.

29 posted on 04/16/2014 2:55:56 PM PDT by BlueDragon (A ship in the harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: BlueDragon
In my eyes of belief Peter was the bishop. I read books on history too. I do not have to get into the lawyered up nonsense like some do on these threads. Going back and forth like a merry -go round of unchristian manners as we all declare ourselves christians. He was in charge. As the church grew he was the leader above other leaders. As other churches and regions grew he became a bishop above other bishops thus the title supreme bishop. Someone who kept the true groups in line. It was about keeping the faith of the Church. You may differ but it is obvious something is going on and on for two thousand years.

Well like Luke the author of Acts for some strange Holy Spirit moment in scripture just has to write down the verses on if its of God it will not be stopped as prophecies by the Famous Rabbi in acts. The Catholic church is going for Two thousand years. Peace in Christ.

34 posted on 04/16/2014 7:00:47 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson