GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Petrine Supremacy  (Read 12679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline seeking2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #70 on: Mon Apr 02, 2012 - 20:34:48 »
Amo, You wrote where Jesus said to Peter : " Get behind me Satan!" . You misunderstand the Words of Jesus that are found in Matt.16:21-23.
 Lets take a look and we can read where for a moment Peter lost faith in what Jesus was teaching him and, for this, Jesus rebuffed him. And it was Peter who later denied Jesus—three times—rather than suffer with him: "Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, ‘You also were with Jesus the Galilean.’ But he denied it before them all, saying, ‘I do not know what you mean’" (Mt 26:69-70). Yet even after all of this, Jesus kept Peter as an apostle. After the Resurrection, Jesus confirmed Peter’s love and exhorted him to continue leading his followers: "Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs’ not just once but three times Jesus commands Peter to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15).


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #70 on: Mon Apr 02, 2012 - 20:34:48 »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Manna: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #71 on: Mon Apr 02, 2012 - 22:23:15 »
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?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #71 on: Mon Apr 02, 2012 - 22:23:15 »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Manna: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #72 on: Mon Apr 02, 2012 - 23:17:25 »
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.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #73 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 01:19:33 »
Peter and The Keys

After telling Peter that he (Jesus) was going to build his church on Peter, and thereby making him the leader and Jesus’ representative on earth (Mt 16:17-18) he continues in the next verse to declare Peter’s authority.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #73 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 01:19:33 »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #74 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 01:33:49 »
Quote
His judgements culminated in the events of AD 70 where the believing Jews were dispersed into the Gentile world, into Paul's ekklesia's. While those zealots stayed behind to receive their just reward.
Actually that would be 135 ad, the Bar Kochba revolt (the final seperation of church and synagogue) where the Messianic Jews fought along side their Pharasaic Jewish brothers until Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba to be the messiah. No believer in Yeshua/Jesus would fight for a false messiah so we dropped out. Rome won and dispersed all the Jews (traditional and Messianic) out of Judea which they renamed Palestina. There were almost no jews there for the next 1600 or 1700 years.

True, however I was speaking to the fulfullment of Dan 9

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.  (Dan 9:27)

Insight

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #74 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 01:33:49 »



Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #75 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 01:35:52 »
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.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #76 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 02:17:00 »
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.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #77 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 02:23:12 »

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

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 92
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #78 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 02:45:00 »
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.

Offline kensington

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6816
  • Manna: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #79 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 03:08:16 »
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.   

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 92
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #80 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 03:15:03 »
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.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 92
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #81 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 03:30:33 »
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).

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Manna: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #82 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 03:31:16 »
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?

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 92
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #83 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 03:41:42 »
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.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Manna: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #84 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 04:01:18 »
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.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Manna: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #85 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 04:07:47 »
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?

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #86 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 05:33:34 »


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.

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #87 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 05:41:05 »

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 .

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #88 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 06:11:10 »

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)

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #89 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 06:19:01 »
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

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #90 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 06:55:13 »
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.
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 07:44:57 by Insight »

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #91 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 12:43:18 »

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 .
Sorry ... missed this trying to avoid some of the nonsense posts on this thread.

I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.

"Most" - in my opinion view the Latin teachings with respect - but simply toss aside any doctrinal issues as "problems in definition".

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #92 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 13:19:56 »

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 .


I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.


It's important to me because I want my knowledge of Catholicism to grow , and part of that growth would be to know what a Catholic Patriarch teaches . Simple as that .

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #93 on: Tue Apr 03, 2012 - 13:36:46 »

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 .


I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.


It's important to me because I want my knowledge of Catholicism to grow , and part of that growth would be to know what a Catholic Patriarch teaches . Simple as that .
Gotcha ... guess it was "reticent" that got my goofy brain working!  Hehe

Will ask my Bishop when I speak to him later tonight.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #94 on: Wed Apr 04, 2012 - 02:33:17 »

Sorry ... missed this trying to avoid some of the nonsense posts on this thread.


Better understood to read "Sorry....missed this trying to avoid all the truth being posted in this thread"  ::nodding::

How have you found the insightful exposition of Gal 2 and Acts 15?

Many well read and studied seem to be enjoying the hidden gems? But it appears you would sell these for some pottage? or should we call it Church Dogma?

Insight

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 92
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #95 on: Wed Apr 04, 2012 - 09:32:40 »
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.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #96 on: Wed Apr 04, 2012 - 17:03:59 »
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.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #97 on: Wed Apr 04, 2012 - 17:05:54 »

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 .


I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.


It's important to me because I want my knowledge of Catholicism to grow , and part of that growth would be to know what a Catholic Patriarch teaches . Simple as that .
Gotcha ... guess it was "reticent" that got my goofy brain working!  Hehe

Will ask my Bishop when I speak to him later tonight.

There is the problem with the church "Will ask my Bishop when I speak to him later tonight"

When he tells you the same lies that he swallowed where will this leave you Scott?


Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #98 on: Wed Apr 04, 2012 - 23:15:22 »
Quote
It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

When and which pope ever said something ex cathedra,and what was it?

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #99 on: Thu Apr 05, 2012 - 00:36:36 »
Quote
It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

When and which pope ever said something ex cathedra,and what was it?
Catholics debate this quite a bit... most will tell you that infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950.

Some will say that papal canonizations of saints are infallible (I don't agree) and some will assert that just about everything the Pope says (from the Wed. audiences to his lunch menu) is infallible.

If you read a modern document (post-Vat I) and read the words  “we define

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5116
  • Manna: 92
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #100 on: Thu Apr 05, 2012 - 02:38:14 »
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.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #101 on: Sat Apr 07, 2012 - 00:34:16 »
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.

Offline neophyte

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #102 on: Wed Apr 11, 2012 - 20:31:05 »
Insight, your understanding of Holy Scripture would be completely foreign to the early Christians, never mind the pagans.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #103 on: Tue May 01, 2012 - 10:33:10 »
Quote
Catholics debate this quite a bit... most will tell you that infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950.

Some will say that papal canonizations of saints are infallible (I don't agree) and some will assert that just about everything the Pope says (from the Wed. audiences to his lunch menu) is infallible.

If you read a modern document (post-Vat I) and read the words  “we define

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Petrine Supremacy
« Reply #104 on: Tue May 01, 2012 - 16:37:34 »
Quote
Catholics debate this quite a bit... most will tell you that infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950.

Some will say that papal canonizations of saints are infallible (I don't agree) and some will assert that just about everything the Pope says (from the Wed. audiences to his lunch menu) is infallible.

If you read a modern document (post-Vat I) and read the words  “we define

 

     
anything