Petrine Supremacy

[Insight]

The idea of Petrine supremacy, or rather said Petrine primacy, is quite well supported by the first 13 chapters of Acts.
Peter's opinions are obviously valued, and he is prominently displayed as the leading presence during the first few years of the church.
It was Peter who was called to go to visit Cornelius, and thus received the message from God to also preach the gospel to the gentiles.....

Thanks AVZ for a well written article.

[Insight]

We do find Peter exercising authority in Acts 15

Let us go back to the beginning of chapter 15 and follow the sequence through.

Vs 1 – In Antioch some (doesn’t specify who here) raise an issue about circumcision.

Vs 2 - There was a debate but no agreement. They realise this needs a decision by the all the leaders, and Paul, with others, decide to go to Jerusalem to get the issue resolved.

Vs 4 – They arrive in Jerusalem and reported what they had been doing.

Vs 5 – Some Pharisees raised the issue of circumcision.

Vs 6 – The apostles and presbyters call a meeting to decide the issue.

Vs 7-11 – There is much debate. Then Peter stood up and gave his position on the issue.

Vs 12 – "The whole assembly fell silent". The issue was decided. Peter had spoken and there was no more to say.
They then moved on to hearing about the work that God had been doing through Paul and Barnabus.

Vs 13 – 21 – When that was finished ("after they had fallen silent") James (as the local Bishop) pointed out that although the decision had been made they still had to communicate that decision to Antioch where the issue had arisen. He reminded them of what Peter had said, supported Peter with some scripture, and proposed practical steps to communicate the decision

Hi Winsome, thanks for your post.
I differ with you on the intention of Peter when he took the word in Acts 15, and I also differ with you on why the assembly fell silent.

To get a full account of the story, you have to start reading in Acts 11, and in particular verse 2 & 3:
"So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and u ate with them.

[Insight]

So neither of you actually get to grips with my posts showing how Jesus appointed Peter as his representative on earth.

Winsome, the Bible has spoken very loudly as the role and responsibility of both Peter and Paul; not by me alone but by others here who have also study the Scriptures which are able to provide wisdom unto salvation.

Do not be offended with me personally though I may have given you reason to be upset with my manner often being less than blunt and to the point.  I will not tolerate error in any form whether it be from me as has often been the case or by you; I will always seek the sole authority which is the same authority that guided Peter.

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.  (1Pe 1:25)

You ought to be thankful that Christ entrusted those same Keys which unlocked the mystery from the ages past.  Keys were given by Word which by the way is the Gospel which I am trying to preach unto you...

If you would only acknoweldge those Keys (2) being that of suffering and glory has (potentially) found its way to you as a result of the suffering of the Apostel Paul and not Peter.

When this is acknowledge you may be ready to move forward.

But you resist from hearing it.

Insight

[winsome]

infallibility
- The Scriptures seem rather certain of the fact that no human is ever infallible
 

Jesus is human

Jesus is infallible.

When I wrote down this line I knew someone would come up with what you just wrote.
I think you are well aware what I meant.

But just to address your comment, are you saying this:
Jesus is human ---> Jesus is infallible, therefor the Pope is infallible?

If the above is true then I have some more for you:
Jesus is human --->Jesus is without sin, therefor the Pope is without sin?
or
Jesus is human ---> Jesus is God, therefor the Pope is God?

AVZ,

There is a lot of misunderstanding about infallibility.

It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

It is Jesus that is infallible and he gifted a share in his infallibility to his Church and he gave a share in his authority to the Church and to the individual apostles and their succesors.

The Pope, either alone in certain cases, or more normally in conjunction with all the bishops of the world can exercise that charism of infallibility that Christ gifted to his Church. They are sharing in Christ's infallibility with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

No man can raise someone from the dead in his own strength and power, or forgive sins on his own authority, or drive out devils on his own authority, only with the authority of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus promised to his Church, that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth (Jn 16:13), that the gates of hell would not prevail against it Mt 28:20. He promised he would not leave his Church on its own (Jn 14:18).

The term Papal infallibility is used as a shorthand, but the definition is quite clear:

".......we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance, promised to him in blessed Peter that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

[kensington]

I have no problems accepting the doctrine of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome , but I have very strong criticism of the way it is used in the Church's life .

Persinally I think the problem is the Vatican not the Pope. But that's another topic.

Thanks go your replies winsome ... and I will get you some ECG quotes (many by the same folks) that will give some context later tonight (at work now).

Note that the decrees of Vatican I are quite clear about the supremacy of the Pope.

Therefore,
    if anyone says that
        blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
        it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
    let him be anathema.
(Session 4 Chap1 para 6)

And more on that theme

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume3.htm

Can you please give Chapter and verse of the BIBLE that says anyone who doesn't believe Peter was head of the church be an anathema?

I find it hard to believe that even the Vatican would declare something that even Jesus himself would not ever say.   

[winsome]

We do find Peter exercising authority in Acts 15

Let us go back to the beginning of chapter 15 and follow the sequence through.

Vs 1 – In Antioch some (doesn’t specify who here) raise an issue about circumcision.

Vs 2 - There was a debate but no agreement. They realise this needs a decision by the all the leaders, and Paul, with others, decide to go to Jerusalem to get the issue resolved.

Vs 4 – They arrive in Jerusalem and reported what they had been doing.

Vs 5 – Some Pharisees raised the issue of circumcision.

Vs 6 – The apostles and presbyters call a meeting to decide the issue.

Vs 7-11 – There is much debate. Then Peter stood up and gave his position on the issue.

Vs 12 – "The whole assembly fell silent". The issue was decided. Peter had spoken and there was no more to say.
They then moved on to hearing about the work that God had been doing through Paul and Barnabus.

Vs 13 – 21 – When that was finished ("after they had fallen silent") James (as the local Bishop) pointed out that although the decision had been made they still had to communicate that decision to Antioch where the issue had arisen. He reminded them of what Peter had said, supported Peter with some scripture, and proposed practical steps to communicate the decision

Hi Winsome, thanks for your post.
I differ with you on the intention of Peter when he took the word in Acts 15, and I also differ with you on why the assembly fell silent.

To get a full account of the story, you have to start reading in Acts 11, and in particular verse 2 & 3:
"So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and u ate with them.

[winsome]

I have no problems accepting the doctrine of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome , but I have very strong criticism of the way it is used in the Church's life .

Persinally I think the problem is the Vatican not the Pope. But that's another topic.

Thanks go your replies winsome ... and I will get you some ECG quotes (many by the same folks) that will give some context later tonight (at work now).

Note that the decrees of Vatican I are quite clear about the supremacy of the Pope.

Therefore,
    if anyone says that
        blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
        it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
    let him be anathema.
(Session 4 Chap1 para 6)

And more on that theme

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume3.htm

Can you please give Chapter and verse of the BIBLE that says anyone who doesn't believe Peter was head of the church be an anathema?

I find it hard to believe that even the Vatican would declare something that even Jesus himself would not ever say.   

Anathema is Latin and means to excommunicate, to exclude from communion.


Formal and definitive definitions of dogmas are often of the form "if any one says.............. anathema sit"

It's not cursing them as many people think but excluding from full commmunion the Church until they repent.

Jesus says:
“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.  If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’  If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. (Mt 18:15-17).

[AVZ]

AVZ,

There is a lot of misunderstanding about infallibility.

It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

It is Jesus that is infallible and he gifted a share in his infallibility to his Church and he gave a share in his authority to the Church and to the individual apostles and their succesors.

The Pope, either alone in certain cases, or more normally in conjunction with all the bishops of the world can exercise that charism of infallibility that Christ gifted to his Church. They are sharing in Christ's infallibility with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

No man can raise someone from the dead in his own strength and power, or forgive sins on his own authority, or drive out devils on his own authority, only with the authority of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus promised to his Church, that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth (Jn 16:13), that the gates of hell would not prevail against it Mt 28:20. He promised he would not leave his Church on its own (Jn 14:18).

The term Papal infallibility is used as a shorthand, but the definition is quite clear:

".......we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance, promised to him in blessed Peter that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Hi Winsome,

There is very little misunderstanding about infallibility. If at all there is, it is because the Catholic Church came up with this precept in conjuction with unnegotiable acceptance of dogma.

You will not find anywhere in the Scriptures mentioned or even insinuated that Jesus passed on the attribute of infallibility to anyone.
Similarly you will not find any accounts in the Scripture where someone claims to be infallible.

What you will find over and over again throughout the Scriptures, is that men (some of them highly filled with Gods Spirit) showed their fallibility.
What you will also find in the New Testament is the warning that from within the church, through fallible understanding, false teachers will arise.

But surely, by presenting the Scriptural references, you can substantiate the concept of human infallibility to me?
Show me, where is it written that Peter (and the apostles) were given infallibility that was meant to be passed on to their sucessors?

[winsome]

AVZ,

There is a lot of misunderstanding about infallibility.

It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

It is Jesus that is infallible and he gifted a share in his infallibility to his Church and he gave a share in his authority to the Church and to the individual apostles and their succesors.

The Pope, either alone in certain cases, or more normally in conjunction with all the bishops of the world can exercise that charism of infallibility that Christ gifted to his Church. They are sharing in Christ's infallibility with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

No man can raise someone from the dead in his own strength and power, or forgive sins on his own authority, or drive out devils on his own authority, only with the authority of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is what Jesus promised to his Church, that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth (Jn 16:13), that the gates of hell would not prevail against it Mt 28:20. He promised he would not leave his Church on its own (Jn 14:18).

The term Papal infallibility is used as a shorthand, but the definition is quite clear:

".......we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance, promised to him in blessed Peter that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Hi Winsome,

There is very little misunderstanding about infallibility. If at all there is, it is because the Catholic Church came up with this precept in conjuction with unnegotiable acceptance of dogma.

You will not find anywhere in the Scriptures mentioned or even insinuated that Jesus passed on the attribute of infallibility to anyone.
Similarly you will not find any accounts in the Scripture where someone claims to be infallible.

What you will find over and over again throughout the Scriptures, is that men (some of them highly filled with Gods Spirit) showed their fallibility.
What you will also find in the New Testament is the warning that from within the church, through fallible understanding, false teachers will arise.

But surely, by presenting the Scriptural references, you can substantiate the concept of human infallibility to me?
Show me, where is it written that Peter (and the apostles) were given infallibility that was meant to be passed on to their sucessors?

I gave you several scripture references.

Read them.

[AVZ]

I don’t agree that Peter had made a mistake.

Of course you don't agree. Admitting Peter made a mistake is admitting he did not carry authority in the way you would like him to have.
Read my response below.

Yes, the issue was decided. The debate had concluded with Peter’s speech and they move on to other matters.

What other matters? Can you show me that the assembly was about multiple matters?
Acts 15:5-6 "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

[AVZ]

I gave you several scripture references.
Read them.

I have read through all your references. Not one of them mentions the word "infallible" or refers to it.
Except for the KJV (1 occasion in Acts 1:3) the word infallible is not even mentioned in any Bible translation.

So where did it come from other than from dogmatic assumption?

[Paulus]

Can you please give Chapter and verse of the BIBLE that says anyone who doesn't believe Peter was head of the church be an anathema?

You know that no Roman Catholic can give chapter and verse annunciating a truth in such terminology .

Likewise no one can give chapter and verse of the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura , Sola Fide , etc. etc.

[Paulus]

A question for you Scott . You have said : " I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop . " What does your Patriarch teach about the dogma of Papal Supremacy as defined by the First Vatican Council ?

Come on , beam yourself up , Scotty .

Not for the first time have I asked you this or a similar question , but you seem to be reticent in answering .

[Insight]

Acts 15:12 is one such verse that needs to be considered deeply looking behind the verse to see what actually happened.

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. (Acts 15:12)

The meeting was hushed through the lucid reasons presented by Peter — a great contrast to the previous challenging dispute,
and more receptive to the further evidence to be given by Barnabas and Paul.

The apostles and elders of Jerusalem had been previously convinced by private discussion (See v. 4; Gal. 2:2), and now both
Barnabas and Paul presented the matter to the general assembly.

Bringing these two passages together is essential in undestanding what is taken place.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. (Acts 15:4)

Compare

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. (Galatians 2:2)

(Writen fotr AVZ and Winsome)

[Insight]

O and apparently James, as the foremost brother in the Jerusalem Ekklesia, presides having authority to make a determination according to the evidence presented.

Vr 13 "And after they had held their peace"

A further silence followed the address of the two brethren from Antioch. Nobody rose to challenge their testimony, despite the presence of their uncircumcised associate, Titus (Gal. 2:3).

Nothing in this record to suggest Peter held greater authority than the other Apostles; if anything one might lean towards James in this section due to his already apointed position within this congragation.

Insight