Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[Quix]

Alamo-Girl has mentioned some quantum physics examples.

There are some mysterioius Scriptural examples . . . God changing His mind at Moses persuasion.

God sending an evil spirit.

Paradoxes abound in life and reality. Very counter to logic as humans normally construe logic.

But maybe that's something only old foggies like me notice much.

[Quix]

Orthodoxy is determined by the bishops of the Church; that is precisely what distinguishes orthodoxy from heterdoxy. Orthodoxy is not determined by agreement with one's own private and personal interpretation of Scripture or one's own private and personal determination of "what God is saying".

The history of the human Roman organization is full of blazing brazen examples to the opposite. I have no need to rub anyone's nose in them. But I'm a bit shocked that the above statement is believed by anyone in light of them.

Absolute power corrupting absolutely has been exemplified worst in RELIGIOUS organizations up until probably Hitler. There could be other exceptions I'm not thinking of at the moment. Augustine was wiser than to have made such a brash statement. Evidently his biases blinded him.

it is not the Roman Hierarchy per se that determines orthdoxy--as 20,000+ different John SKERRIAN FLIPFLOPS, indulgences, Papal exceptions for Papal escapades . . . on what is right and wrong from one year, decade, century to the next have demonstrated with abundant repetitiveness. It is fundamentally the Church, particularly, her bishops in POLITICAL succession from the Apostles and in POLITICAL BLOCK MANEUVERING with the bishop holding the seat of THE CHIEF POLITICIAN--THE POPE--THAT HAS DEMONSTRATED VERY BRAZENLY SO REPEATEDLY OVER THE CENTURIES that Phariseeism is alive and well on planet earth.

Just as in the days of Christ and the Apostles, to enter the Church was to enter into political gamesmanchip with the currently most politically successful pharisees and to submit to their leadership and authority, VS THAT OF SCRIPTURE AND THE HOLY SPIRIT . . . so today to enter the Church is to FAR TO OFTEN IN MOST ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS GROUPS . . . to enter into more political gamesmanship; pharisaical posturing and pontificating with those bishops in succession from the pharisees of Jesus' earthly walk and submit to their spiritually corrupt; spiritually bankrupt; spiritually deadly leadership and authority.

. . . slightly . . . (tee hee) . . . edited for accuracy and Scriptural faithfulness.

[Uncle Chip]

You give the false impression that Peter was never to preach among the Gentiles. Acts 15:7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Peter is referring here at the Council of Jerusalem [circa 50 AD] about the event that happened "a good while ago", meaning at the House of Cornelius [circa 36 AD]. Read what God had to do to change Peter's thinking that the Gentiles should hear the Gospel. Peter had to be pulled kicking and screaming into Cornelius's house, and was clearly stunned at what transpired there, understanding then and only then that the Gospel should also go to the Gentiles, but it was then Paul not Peter who was anointed, prepared, and commissioned with that task:

" . . . they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [Paul], as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" [Galatians 2:9]

It didn't mean that Peter was limited to only Jews and Paul to only Gentiles, because Gentiles and Jews were often in the same crowds and heard the same messages. But the Gospel as Paul delivered it was specially oriented toward Gentiles, while Peter's always had a unique Jewish flavor.

[adiaireton8]

I teach logic. None of these violates any rule of logic.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

satan uses ALL organizations made by man to raise up RELIGION--AGAINST

RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD; FELLOWSHIP; WALKING IN THE GARDEN; INTIMATE DIALOGUE PERSON TO PERSON WITH GOD.

(Please stop using all caps.)

Anti-institutionalism of the sort you are advancing is a form of Protestantism. It is the natural development of Protestantism, and can be found in the Anabaptist tradition of Protestantism (think of Quakers, Brethren, etc.). So, we don't need an additional category of the sort you suggest. It is covered by Protestantism.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

I found this from F.A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops, Newman Press, a Catholic source often quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured:

"Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish . . . The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops . . . The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop . . . The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul, the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with the authority over the whole local church . . . Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have been led at that time by a group of presbyters . . . There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church."

Isn't honest scholarship refreshing. A Catholic scholar who also disagrees with Jerome and Eusebius. According to honest Catholic scholars, the first Roman Church was a Presbyterian Church. The See of Rome was built on presbyterians not St. Peter or a bishopric attributed to him. Is that not a bit humorous?

Was F A Sullivan part of that vaunted Magisterium? Why don't we hear more from these honest Catholic scholars who also don't believe Jerome or Eusebius, and the great legend of Peter's 25 year Roman bishopric? Or maybe after writing this he became a Presbyterian.

[adiaireton8]

A8: "Orthodoxy is determined by the bishops of the Church; that is precisely what distinguishes orthodoxy from heterdoxy. Orthodoxy is not determined by agreement with one's own private and personal interpretation of Scripture or one's own private and personal determination of "what God is saying."

The history of the human Roman organization is full of blazing brazen examples to the opposite.

Name one example in the history of the Catholic Church of orthodoxy being determined by the laity instead of the bishops.

Absolute power corrupting absolutely has been exemplified worst in RELIGIOUS organizations up until probably Hitler.

First, neither the Pope nor the bishops have "absolute power". Second, Christ is the one who gave ruling authority to the Apostles, and through them to the bishops they ordained. Seemingly, on your view, Christ should not have ordained Apostles and bishops. The fact that secular political authorities sometimes abuse their authority does not imply that we should rebel against the bishops, or that orthodoxy is not determined by them.

Augustine was wiser than to have made such a brash statement. Evidently his biases blinded him.

Or, your anti-institutional bias is blinding you. Which is more likely, that you are blinded, or that the great saint Augustine (and all the fathers, since they all agreed with him) were blinded?

it is not the Roman Hierarchy per se that determines orthdoxy--as 20,000+ different John SKERRIAN FLIPFLOPS

Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

There is no essential disagreement between Sullivan and Eusebius or Jerome. The term 'presbyteros' was used in multiple senses originally, sometimes simply to refer broadly to the leaders of the church. And early on, as I pointed out above, there were in some cases multiple bishops along with multiple priests in the same church; the entire leadership could then be called 'presbyteois' in this broader sense. But the Church from the very beginning has understood the difference in sacramental *orders* between those who could ordain (i.e. bishops) and those who could not (priests), and those who could not offer the Eucharistic sacrifice (deacons). The problems that Clement of Rome addresses in his letter to the church at Corinth may very well have been on account of Corinth for some reason not having a bishop. (I don't know the early clerical history of the church at Corinth.)

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Did you say that you teach LOGIC or RHETORIC. Because that was a lot of RHETORIC and made no sense. Perhaps some more from F. A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops:

"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul'. Here, we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul"

Once again an honest Catholic scholar admitting that Irenaeus, and subsequently Eusebius and Jerome, were mistaken. Whos is the scholar here and who is the rhetorician?

[adiaireton8]

F.A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops, Newman Press, a Catholic source often quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured:

Which Catholic encylopedia would that be?

Since you have already shown yourself to be willing to make things up, I'm not going to accept your claim that Sullivan's book has the nihil obstat, without some verification.

-A8

[wmfights]

"While there is no evidence that Simon Peter was in Rome, other than Eusebius and Jerome's claim magically pulled out of thin air, there is substantial credible written evidence that Simon Magus had a major impact on Rome's subsequent spiritual development."
________________________________

I have never given it a lot of thought one way or the other, why does it matter whether Peter was the founder, or Bishop, of the Roman Church? Is it tied to the idea that they have supreme leader, who was above all other Apostles?

[kerryusama04]

Catholics agree. But Catholics do not see this truth as incompatible with Heb 13:17. We recognize that our leaders are fallible, but we also recognize that God has appointed them, and that He wants us to obey them. The command to obey our leaders is not a blank check. Perhaps that is your worry (and it is an understandable and justified worry). But we have to fit both truths together, and neither reject Church authority nor turn into Catholic Borg [from Star Trek]. Protestantism has tended to reject Church authority altogether, as you can see clearly stated throughout this thread. On the other side, some Catholics have hushed up crimes and abuses because they failed to understand that our leaders are fallible.

The standard set out by the Bible that Jesus allowed Himself to be judged by is the Law, not the church. When your church violates the Law, what course to you have to affect change? What exactly can Catholic laity do to affect the excommunication of a member of the clergy?

1Pe 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 1Pe 5:2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 1Pe 5:3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 1Pe 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Peter recognized that he was a "fellow elder" and that Christ is the Chief Elder.

Now, consider the verses below and tell me how they can be reconciled with the nature of the Catholic Church:

1Th 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 1Th 5:22 abstain from every form of evil.

Rom 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

[wmfights]

"According to honest Catholic scholars, the first Roman Church was a Presbyterian Church."
_________________________________

FWIW, the Didache also supports this in it's instructions in how to treat Prophets and Teachers. The church was clearly congregational with elders determined from the community by their "walk".

[adiaireton8]

The standard set out by the Bible ... is the Law, not the church.

Yes, we have to follow our conscience regarding the moral law. But the laity have no authority with respect to ecclesial or canon law.

When your church violates the Law, what course to you have to affect change?

Are you referring to moral law or ecclesial law?

What exactly can Catholic laity do to affect the excommunication of a member of the clergy?

Pray for the excommunicated person and attempt to persuade them to seek reconciliation with the Church.

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

"I have never given it a lot of thought one way or the other, why does it matter whether Peter was the founder, or Bishop, of the Roman Church? Is it tied to the idea that they have supreme leader, who was above all other Apostles?"

It is a matter of credibility. Is the legend of the Roman Church true or is Scripture? Too many Protestants have just accepted the fact of a 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome as fact, when Scripture and honest Patriarchs and honest Catholic scholars testify against it.

The question is why do Protestant scholars blindly accept this myth rather than believe the truth of the Scriptures on this matter. Where the Scriptures are silent on a matter, scholars should be. But when Peter writes an epistle from Babylon, as late as 65 AD, why do believers in Sola Scriptura so readily spiritualize Babylon away and say that he really meant Rome. What else are believers in Sola Scriptura spiritualizing away?

[adiaireton8]

The church was clearly congregational with elders determined from the community by their "walk"

It is true that at least in some cases congregations did select candidates for Church offices, but the candidates still had to be approved and ordained by the bishops. Congregations had no authority or power to ordain bishops or presbyers (priests).

-A8

[Uncle Chip]

Since you have already shown yourself to be willing to make things up, I'm not going to accept your claim that Sullivan's book has the nihil obstat, without some verification.

Why should it even matter if what he said is true and the result of honest scholarship? Oh no --- don't tell me --- have they dug up his bones too and burned them?

[adiaireton8]

Why should it even matter if what he said is true and the result of honest scholarship?

Because you are trying to create the appearance of a contradiction within orthodox Catholicism. If Sullivan's book lacks the nihil obstat (and I suspect that it does), then your case for a contradiction within orthodox Catholicism is obviously deficient.

-A8

[wmfights]

"It is a matter of credibility. Is the legend of the Roman Church true or is Scripture?"
_____________________________

I follow this completely. Objective pursuit of the truth should always be our goal.

[wmfights]

Please don't post me.

Early in this thread you claimed I made Ad Hominen attacks against you. It's an old tactic I see all to often when someone has to deal with error and doesn't lead to open honest discussions.