Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[Quix]

Not surprised.

[Quix]

Most fogies are foggie. That's what makes them a fogie.
= = = =

More familiar with that than I want to be.

LOL.

[Quix]

Certainly a lot of folks think I've been lost in a fuge for a long time.

And certainly the Calvinists and probably now the Romans are convinced I'm terminally fog-y.

Thankfully, God knows my heart and all the rest besides! YEA GOD! LOL.

[Quix]

Plausible distinctions, to me.

Thx.

[Quix]

For the first 300 years the early church just ran around evangelizing until so many goofy views started springing up that someone decided that perhaps it would be good to write down what Christians believe. The "grand hierarchal" that the early fathers refer to is simply because there was no other choices up until this time. Interesting, the Orthodox never recognized a Pope as the top dog.
= = =

Great points, imho.

[Quix]

Stunning isn't that all the inspired "God Breathed" writings that comprise the New Testament were written during the Apostolic Era. This was accomplished before we had a dominant religion of the State.
= = = =

INDEED, INDEED!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your all of your posts and your insights!

When it comes to caps, color, sizing, boldfacing and other emphasis - one must do what he must. The effect of it might indeed limit the audience because many of us may tend to either read only the emphasis or anything but the emphasis or just skip it altogether.

Nevertheless the correspondent must express himself. If it goes beyond what is acceptable, I'm sure the Religion Moderator will take care of it. LOL!

Personally, I try to keep my replies short and limit myself to three main points simply because most Freepers don't have a lot of time to wade through a bunch of narrative and I'm hoping they'll read my contributions. But then there are times when I must go into more detail and/or provide sources and "back up" whatever I'm trying to say.

Those posts can be quite large and all that I can do to make it easier on the reader is to use indentations and emphasis (boldface, italics, underlines and such) to break it into digestible segments.

Oh well, we all struggle to communicate in a world moving at a fast clip. But of a Truth, we need only to trust the Holy Spirit to bring the hearer and encouragement together according to God's will. That is the point, after all.

[Quix]

Well and graciously said with wisdom and accuracy, as usual.

Thanks tons.

You are shaping my behavior by your example maybe more than is obvious.

LUB,

[Quix]

If this is the case, perhaps you could suggest how we might do better in the future.

= = =

While my reply was Scripturally sound and accurate . . . I feel I should try again . . .

Let us as iron sharpening iron ENCOURAGE ONE ANOTHER Scripturally as beloved bretheren . . . and call one another to that standard when we fail to measure up.

Let us avoid the tired and tiresome stereotypes that are unnecessarily--UNNECESSARILY hostile, exclusive etc.

I'm not asking for any lowest common denominator nonsense nor any syncratistic nonsense.

But I am asking for a very minimum of the super repetiticious diatribe types of code words and phrases which are not fruitful in any eternal way. We can all fling them about with great abandon. I think the result is only smelly and muddy.

Hope that helps.
LUB, BRO.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

And I don't think we can achieve unity without agreeing about authority. The key to unity is the issue of authority. As long as we are divided on authority, we cannot be "perfected in unity" as Christ prays in John 17.

On this point we agree. And you used a perfect passage for unity as Christ prayed for us and defined what that unity "is":

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. - John 17:20-23

We are in Christ, Christ is in us. (John 15) We are dead and our lives are hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3).

And there is only one shepherd and one flock:

I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. - John 10:14-16

We are all of the same body of Christ. The Spiritually mature among us don't recognize the divisions which are so important to many:

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? - I Cor 3:1-5

The ones among us who identify themselves with any minister are the ones who are yet carnal, who are yet on milk.

Those of us who are on Spiritual meat must be loving and patient and help the younger Christians understand the meaning of the Lord's prayer, what it is all "about": His name, His will and His kingdom. The rest is details.

My two cents...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all of your kind words and encouragements!

Indeed, I meant to use the word "worldview". A worldview is ego-centric, it's the perspective from which one interprets the world he perceives.

If a person's worldview is that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" he'll interpret the world quite differently than one whose worldview allows for gaps to be filled in by "just so" stories.

[adiaireton8]

But why can't you tell me if you can accuse your clergy and kick them out of the church or not?

I never said I couldn't tell you. We can (and should, though with humility and caution, and by the appropriate means) bring to light serious sins committed by the clergy. In fact, we have a duty to do so, out of love for them and for the holiness and purity of Christ's Church.

Following your logic, Peter is Satan as well as the foundation of the church.

No, the premise of your argument is mistaken. That *doesn't* follow my logic. When Jesus refers to Peter as a rock, Jesus isn't confusing Peter with a dense inanimate homeomerous chunk of earth. Jesus is using the term analogously, showing the *functional* role that Peter and his successors would have in the Church. But when Jesus says "Get behind me Satan", Jesus isn't saying that Peter is Satan. Jesus is not confusing Peter with the angelic prince of darkness. Jesus is speaking to Satan (and Peter) at the same time, rebuking both of them. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus thinks Peter *is* Satan. But Jesus definitely says that Peter is the rock (i.e. the foundation stone) upon which Jesus will build His Church, and to whom Jesus gives (vs. 19) the "keys of the kingdom of heaven".

Where is the term Magisterium found in scripture?

Right next to the word 'Sabbatarian'. :-)

There are many terms in theology that are not found in Scripture.

What scripture, what command of God tells us this?

All the Scriptures and commands of God come to us through the Magisterium. That is why the question itself is strange. Jesus did not write any books. He ordained Apostles with the authority to rule the Church and forgive and retain sins (Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 10:16; John 20:22-23); these Apostles ordained bishops (cf. Pillipians 1:1; 1 Tim 3; Titus 1:7) to govern the churches in the various cities. Bishops were instructed to ordain successors (2 Tim 2:2) through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) with the prayer of consecration. The books of the New Testament were written by Apostles (or others under their supervision), and were over time collected, identified, preserved, copied, and canonized by the bishops.

Here's the definition of 'Magisterium' in the Catholic Catechism: "The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals."

Who is Irenaeus?

Bishop of Lyons, c. 180 AD. You can read more about him here.

Can you really tell me the sum of the scriptures is "trust the church, not the Word of God"?

The Magisterium does *not* say that the sum of Scripture is "trust the church, not the Word of God". It would most definitely reject such a statement. One does not have to choose between trusting the Magisterium and trusting the Word of God. Only by trusting the Magisterium can we trust that we have the Word of God. The two necessarily go together.

"For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Just a couple comments. We agree about the need for agreement concerning authority in order to attain genuine unity.

But, we disagree, I think, concerning the identity of that authority. I believe that the bishops in succession from the Apostles and in communion with the bishop of Rome have the rightful authority in the Church, and that only in communion with Christ's appointed shepherds can we be in full communion with Christ and with each other. You believe, however, that our only authority is Christ, that there are no human authorities in the Church.

So let me ask you a question: If you lived back during the time of the Apostles, would you have been under their authority or not? If so, then as soon as the last Apostle died, would you suddenly be left without any human authorities? But if you would not have been under the Apostles' authority, then why did Jesus give His Apostles the authority to bind and loose and forgive and retain sins, and to speak in His name such that whoever listens to them listens to Him, and whoever rejects them rejects Him? (Luke 10:6; 1 John 4:6)

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

But, we disagree, I think, concerning the identity of that authority. I believe that the bishops in succession from the Apostles and in communion with the bishop of Rome have the rightful authority in the Church, and that only in communion with Christ's appointed shepherds can we be in full communion with Christ and with each other. You believe, however, that our only authority is Christ, that there are no human authorities in the Church.

Exactly right - there are no mortal authorites of God's kingdom. Only the Holy Spirit has the charge and more importantly, the power, to reveal it to and in man.

So let me ask you a question: If you lived back during the time of the Apostles, would you have been under their authority or not?

No, I would have been under Christ's authority then just as I am now. However, it would have been a moot point because the apostles, Stephen, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy and such were filled by the Holy Spirit - so we would have been of one mind.

And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Cor 2:2-16

It's about the power of God. I surrender absolutely to God, i.e. to Him alone.

[JockoManning]

You're welcome. Cyberhymnal.org is a big blessing.

jm

[HarleyD]

Stunning isn't that all the inspired "God Breathed" writings that comprise the New Testament were written during the Apostolic Era.

If one were to do a search on "written" in scripture they would get approximately 253 hits with 125 of those being in the New Testament itself. It is rather laughable for our Catholic friends to say nothing was written down until the 3rd century when many of the church fathers prior to that time quote from the scriptures.

Pliny went on to explain he found no evidence of cannibalism. IOW, the earliest Christians passed the cup because they did not believe the wine had been transformed.

Yes, I find no direct evidence in the very early writings of fathers that they felt "changes" took place during communion.

There is a rather interest part in one of Augustine's writing where he states the early Christians at first believed you had to baptized to be saved. Once you were baptized you had to live a perfect life. To paraphrase Augustine, right after the first baptisms, Christians discovered they were falling short of living a perfect life. Next they decided to wait until their deathbed but some of them died before they could be baptized which they thought meant going to hell. Worst yet, others recovered. Finally they realized that baptism is only a sign.

I find this part of Augustine's writing to be rather interesting if not somewhat funny. The early Christians had to work a lot of these theologies out and not always did they get it right. Obviously, some of the theologies like baptism was a lot easier to figure out but they took this stuff very seriously.

Many of the early fathers were coming out of pagan cultures and, as godly as they tried to be given their situation, they were prone to errors just like everyone else. Some of them held very strange ideas and the Eucharist was one of them. But I really see the problems develop later (around 600AD and upwards) as humanism enveloped the church, the problems with the Crusades (1000-1400??) as people were leaving the Church, the Renaissance's man-centered influenece on theology, and finally the Reformation.

[Uncle Chip]

Come on, Adiaireton8, please post those sacred words of "the Ante-Nicene Fathers" that demonstrate conclusively the foundation of Holy See upon the 25 year bishopric of Peter in Rome and his upside down crucifixion by Nero. You will be doing us all a great favor as we will finally see, once and for all, the truth of that most questionable faith that has arisen from Rome.

Consider it an "ecumenical" effort that will bring us all, separated brethren, and faithful saints, and even unbelievers, together as one. Post those holy words of sacred Tradition for us all to see. And hold back nothing. Our faith can withstand the truth no matter how painful. We need to be thorough but brief.

Meanwhile I will be in silent meditation most of the day with "the Fathers" as well. I have been up for days in "silent" study of all the evidence from St. Luke to St. Jerome. Thank you for recommending them. They have opened up my eyes and I'm sure they will open the eyes of others and ears, all of their arguments from silence notwithstanding.

If I don't hear back from you, and even if I do, I will begin preparing my own list of the words of "the Fathers" regarding Peter's 25 year Bishopric in Rome, with upside down crucifixion there under Nero, of course. And then we can compare our works on this forum so we don't leave any of "the Fathers" out of this great ecumenical pursuit of our day, so that we "all may be one" and on the same page.

One question before I return to my "silent" patristic meditations, are the Syriac Fathers considered part of the "Sacred Tradition of the Church"??? You see in my study of "the Fathers", I found that some Syriac Fathers say that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch until 67 AD . Now we have Peter in three places at once -- in Rome, in Babylon, and in Antioch. How did St Jerome miss this? Are these fathers part of the "Sacred Tradition of the Church"? Are they Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured? Should I be reading them or just discard them? or what? I'm sure you will be able to explain, if not satisfactorially, atleast rhetorically.

Once again, thank you for pointing me to "the Fathers", the warm greeting of the brethren when I joined this thread has inspired me to return the favor. This great work that we will post here will answer a lot of questions, but of course, raise a lot more as well. But that's life.

UC

[wmfights]

I asked before for you not to post me and explained why, please respect my wishes.

[adiaireton8]

Sorry, I forgot!

-A8

[Quix]

Wonderfully said, as usual.

I concur across the board.

Thanks.