Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[adiaireton8]

There is evidence in the Fathers that Peter was at Rome for 25 years, and 42 to 67 AD seems to be the best dates for it, based on what I've read.

I do not know if the Catholic Church has "an official position" on the length of Peter's bishopric in Rome, or on the starting and ending years of his bishopric. My hunch is that the Church leans on historical scholarship to determine those dates accurately. What is important for the Church is that he was at Rome and that he was martyred there.

-A8

[mockingbyrd]

ummmm....(hanging head in shame and staring at the floor)

Could you please tell me what week it is in the Liturgy of the Hours? I kind of fell off the wagon, trying to climb back on, would help if I knew where to start.......

hoping you answer this before I get up tomorrow morning......

[Quix]

Works for me.

Thanks.

[Quix]

I think it's exceedingly unfortunate and sad when organizations-of-man-dogma rewrites history.

All the more so when such things obscure or hinder daily dialogue and priority for intimacy with GOD ALONE.

[adiaireton8]

I said that gnosticism removes the possibility of ecclesial hierarchy. You replied by pointing out that in Scripture we see that God Himself removed persons from positions of ecclesial authority. I replied by asking (rhetorically) whether God needs our help, the point being that just because God does something does not justify us doing it. And therefore, even if God does remove people from positions of ecclesial authority, that does not justify our rebelling against legitimate divinely appointed authority. So if in Scripture God removed people from positions of ecclesial authority, that does not justify belief in gnosticism.

The Church has always recognized Gnosticism as a heresy. See, for example, Robert Spencer's article, Knowing the Gnostics. Or read Michael Horton's In The Face of God. Horton is a Presbyterian (whom I had the privilege to meet a number of years ago), and his book does a very good job showing the gnosticism in contemporary American Evangelicalism. Another good book on this subject, but a bit older, and written by a Catholic, is Ronald Knox's Enthusiasm.

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements and insights!

Great point about the rending of the curtain in the Temple!

John 4:19-24 is quite clear that our worship is not tethered to a geographic location but rather is to be “in spirit and in truth.”

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may...

I don't think gnosticism is an adequate word to describe the chasm between Catholic and non-Catholic beliefs concerning ecclesial hierarchy.

In that link (Catholic Encyclopedia) the term has a sketchy history and blurry meaning but is summed up as "salvation by knowledge" which would be anathema to most non-Catholic Christian confessions known to me.

[Quix]

Gnosticism is not a new topic. I'm 59 years old. By God's grace? mercy? . . . something, He blessed me with a markedly above average IQ. I have enjoyed learning and studying virtually all my life.

I do not believe in Gnosticism. I have never believed in Gnosticism. I will not ever believe in Gnosticism.

My assertions on this thread have nothing to do with Gnosticism. Constructions on reality to the contrary will have to bear their own responsibility for wholesale distorting of what I write and what I believe.

I do not accept that any leader in Rome was chosen of God to be pre-eminent over all Christendom. I will never accept historical revisionism that purports to support that.

To me, it is not Biblical. It will never be seen by me as Biblical.

I see no rebellion against Godly appointed, ordained or anointed leadership in good honorable Biblical Protestant groups SEEKING GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Actually, if there's rebellion, it's against obeying Christ in hearing His voice; following His Voice/Spirit; obeying Him and The Father and Spirit over any other authority of any kind.

Yes, God sets in place spiritual authority and we are right to submit to them. We are also exhorted to submit one to another.

Spiritual authority which takes unto itself undue pride, undue station, undue position, undue "lording it over" other believers is in rebellion against God.

Christ's model was quite the opposite. He called us to His model--not the model of human organizations throughout history.

The history of the early church is that Rome won many political and armed battles to presume for itself a lording it over all Christendom. I consider that a very UnBiblical and UNChristlike turn of events that has plagued Christendom for centuries.

Extrapolating Christ's statement to Peter comparing his weakness to the faith Christ would build his church on is not the remotest adequate extrapolation or inference to build a huge edifice of man's organizaion upon and pretend it's God's will.

These are historical facts in my construction on reality. No amount of badgering; no amount of bad historical revisionism; no amount of misconstruing Scripture; no amount of elaborate extrapolations and inferences based on one questionable reading of one phrase in the whole of Scripture; no mile high pile of traditions or customs or ecleastical pontifications and pomp and circumstance will ever . . . EVER . . . supplant

1. historical fact.
2. GOD AND GOD ALONE AS WORTHY ALL PRAISE AND SUBMISSION

3. the very Biblical egalitarianism of The Cross and the priesthood of all believers . . .
4. the Scriptural command to avoid calling earthly mortals Father etc. in the lofty ecleastical sense . . .

5. the need to follow leadership which is anointed and to quit following it when the anointing lifts--at least to quit giving such leadership unqualified submission and support when the anointing leaves.

6. prayerful discernment testing the spirit and attitude that any and all believers and others around me operate in as well as I endeavor to check myself on such matters routinely, ongoingly.

= = = = = = = =

Of course God doesn't NEED anything from us, per se. He chose to create us for intimate fellowship.

But certainly He is well able to remove anointing and even individuals from positions and even from organizations as well as from this life.

Sometimes, God CHOOSES to involve flawed humans in such matters. I have no need to argue with Him. HE DOES HAPPEN TO BE GOD ALMIGHTY.

There was a pastoral couple in the AofG church a block from my BA university. The short story is that they had a hugely important mission field at their door step and instead abused and dismissed college students very unwarrantely and unBiblically. After a needless suicide after such dismissiveness, I was furious.

I found Holy Spirit rising up within me most fiercely at such travesties in the name of God. I overheard myself praying that the couple would be changed; moved away OR taken out of this life within a year. In less than a year, they were moved and then both graduated from this life. I expect to see them in Heaven.

But their anointing had long gone--particularly in that position and role. They were at best a sbumbling block to what God wanted to do in that area. Too truly, they were significantly worse than a mere stumbling block.

That's not the only such phenomena I've been compelled to be a part of. I expect to see far more such in coming months and years. There will be many events like Annanias and his wife.

GOD IS NOT TO BE MOCKED. HIS WAYS ARE TO BE RESPECTED AND SUBMITTED TO. HIS WAYS ARE BEYOND FINDING OUT.

THEY ARE CERTAINLY BEYOND PACKAGING INTO ANY . . . AS IN

ANY

MAN'S ORGANIZATION. THAT WAS TRUE OF PRIOR TO NOAH. IT WAS TRUE OF NOAH'S ERA. IT WAS TRUE OF EVEN MOSES' ERA--GOD WAS CONSTANTLY KNOCKING THE SIDES OUT OF BOXES HE HIMSELF HAD ORDAINED. IT WAS CERTAINLY TRUE IN DAVID'S ERA AND LATER.

Man's organizations quickly descend into RELIGION instead of intimate dialogue and RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

= = = =

Again, there is not a shred of Gnosticism in my theology nor in my relationship with God nor in my relationship with other Christians. Failing to see that at some point is not my problem. I do not enjoy being repeatedly beat over the head with a falsehood.

[Quix]

May I say BRAVO to this post? And AMEN as well!
= = = =

I MUCH AGREE. Thanks.

[Running On Empty]

We are in the 1st week ;-)

[Quix]

THANKS TONS for your encouragements. Much appreciated.

And your example as well.

[Quix]

Thanks much.

That unwarranted slam of Gnosticism rather egregiously inaccurately . . . gets wearying.

[Alamo-Girl]

I get called gnostic now and again too - it's not a biggie to me mostly because the term is almost meaningless. And to whatever level it can be defined, it certainly does not describe my confession - or yours.

Faith and reason are complementary but reason can never substitute for faith.

[adiaireton8]

The books I mentioned in my previous post by Horton and Knox clarify this. Summarizing gnosticism as "salvation by knowledge" is a bit of an over-simplification. Primitive gnosticism denied the incarnation. Contemporary gnosticism in American Evangelicalism does not deny that the Logos took on human nature; but it does deny that salvation comes to us through the vehicle of material sacraments (i.e. baptism, Eucharist, etc.). All the graces of salvation come to us, according to contemporary gnosticism, directly through the Spirit, apart from material means. For contemporary gnosticism, we are saved by the "Word", by "hearing the Word", and thus by knowledge. That Word need not be incarnate. Our bodies need no physical sacraments. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word", and that's all we need, according to contemporary gnosticism. Salvation is all internal, all about the soul and spirit, not about the body. It is just the establishing of a personal relationship between Jesus and me. That's contemporary gnosticism.

-A8

[tiki]

But those were the words of Jesus spoken to Peter!?! What justification do you give for you disregarding Jesus' words? They are in the Bible, after all.

[adiaireton8]

The power to loose and bind cannot trump God's Word.

But it can and does trump your 'authority' to interpret God's Word.

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the further explanation!

Nevertheless, I dismiss it out-of-hand because there is no ipso facto as it suggests here:

For contemporary gnosticism, we are saved by the "Word", by "hearing the Word", and thus by knowledge.

Rather it is despite "knowledge" that we are saved - which is to say we receive a "divine revelation." IOW, that Jesus Christ is Lord is not something we can reason or perceive by hearing or other senses.

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. - John 8:43

The persons to whom Christ was speaking were hearing Him physically, their physical ears were registering the pressure waves and their physical brains were processing - but they were not hearing Him spiritually.

That is the difference - spiritual hearing is nothing man can develop for himself, it is a gift of God.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. - John 10:26-28

[adiaireton8]

I left the Catholic Church because it contradicts scripture.

More accurately, because it contradicts your interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly what verse or verses of Scripture, according to your interpretation, are incompatible with the doctrines of the Catholic Church?

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Salvation by divine "revelation" is even more akin to the gnostics of the first and second centuries than salvation by knowledge acquired by sense perception, for divine "revelation" per se has nothing to do with matter or the incarnation. In fact, talking about "spiritual hearing" or any other species of higher knowledge or spiritual knowledge is even more evidence of gnosticism. For that is exactly what the gnostics of the first centuries claimed, that they were saved by a higher [hidden to the unenlightened], spiritual knowledge.

-A8