Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter—the Office of the Papacy—for Peter’s successors are the popes. The word “pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.
That Peter receives an office and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the Office of the Papacy, we will also deal with them later. But for now let’s look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.
I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“
It should be noted that in asking these questions Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of Him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.
Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods.
1. The Poll - Jesus asks who the crowds say that He is. In modern times we love to take polls and many moderns put a lot of stock in what polls say. Many people (Catholics among them) like to point out that x% of Catholics think this or that about moral teachings or about doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something makes it true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.
But as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong no matter what percentage held them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll-taking or democracy seems not to be a model that works.
2. The Panel - Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a group of experts, a “blue-ribbon panel” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom, not wanting to answer lest they look foolish. The politics on the panel led not to truth but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.
That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel but for another reason altogether.
Hence the blue-ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.
And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to His identity. All we have are opinions or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forward to describe God’s plan in setting forth the truths of faith.
II. The Individual that is Inspired - The text says, Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly not because he was the smartest (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), or because he happened to guess correctly. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
It’s not polls or panels that God uses—it’s Peter.
And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God. He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says the following of Peter and his successors, the popes:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them … The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 880-884, selected).
All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God Himself chooses to operate.
And note, too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he has power, riches, or other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not in flesh and blood that we put our trust; it is in God Himself, who we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.
And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.
III. The Installation that is Initiated - The text says, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further and declares that He will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus He calls him Peter (rock). And here, too, He does not merely mean this as a personal gift or as a sort of recognition that will die with Peter. In giving Peter the keys, He is establishing an office, not merely a “promotion” for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren (Luke 22:31).
Hence it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter (and his successors), that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united. Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for His Church.
It is true that many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Jesus is establishing both Peter and an office that will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of His Church.
Some object that within other verses Peter will be called “Satan” and will deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this and still said and did what He does here.
Others object that Jesus is the head and foundation, that He is the rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is He Himself who calls Peter the rock and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE). And in addition that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises His headship and foundational aspect.
Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” Without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. Personally, I think this is exaggerated—but not by much. Protestants all claim the Scriptures as their source of the truth but differ on many essential matters such as sexual morality, authority, the necessity of baptism, whether once saved is always saved, etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among Protestants, that goes,
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations that I know get along fine on a personal level. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very important things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless division. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus installed an individual in this role to manifest His office of rock and head of the Church. That individual was Peter and after, his successors.
The bible DOES illustrate that ALL were being spoken to at the start; impulsive Peter jumps out of his virtual school desk chair, saying "Me, ME, ME!!!" and gives an answer; do you not agree?
I'm glad you've noted about the ADDING WORDS TO implication.
This is PRECISELY what the RCC does in SO many of it's assertions.
Please, if you will, hold IT to the same standards as are tried to be applied to Protestantism?
If that request is too much; can we be allowed to use the same rules that Rome does?
Yeah...
I’ve noticed!
As, I imagine, have any lurkers in these threads.
Why not the OTHER 6??
On a side note; I wasn't aware that there WAS a 'catholic' old testament. I thought it was JEWISH.
And yet we still the 'poorly catechized' mantra here on FR.
Even I have to be retested for a drivers license now and then; why aren't members of the Roman Catholic Church tested to see if their training is still adequately in place?
It seems VASTLY more important...
“I can’t be charitable today, I have a headache”
Even poor, frustrated Joseph hung around for at LEAST 12 years...
I fully expected to have my remark deleted at the time I posted them.
This IS; of course; the Religion forum; where we are expected to behave in a bit higher level than our normal human nature is expressed.
At least I knew they'd go away.
You’d better NOT commit any crimes against MY gramma!
But...
...it comes with the territory!
Elsie:
Fair enough, and technically you are correct. I should have stated the Catholic OT Canon. As for why the other books are not quoted, good question, I don’t know the answer, one of them I do believe is Ruth which has always been part of the Canon but was not quoted in the NT by any of the Apostles.
metmom:
Well, I can’t remember which one was mine that got deleted. The RM has deleted all of the heated posts so it is a done deal.
Elsie:
Come on Elsie, I clearly stated you did not directly say Catholics are Cults, but given this thread is Catholic Doctrine with its protestant detractors attacking it, implicitly your use of the term was at some level being thrown the Catholic way, or at least that was my interpretation of it. In all honesty, only you know the context of how you meant it, for the record.
Elsie:
What the Catechism cites and what is in it has to read and understood. I took lots of statistics in College, but the only way I would pass it is by reading the text, working the problems, learning how to execute statistical analysis using SAS, etc. So I will not make a statement that every Catholic is serious about his or her faith.
Elsie:
Well, I admired your passion and use of the term and actually got a good laugh on that particular term. The implicit use of the term cultist, that one did not sit as well.
But back to the question at hand which lead to the remark that was deleted, I did link the entire dogmatic statement from Vatican 1. Too many people look at MT 16:16-18 and try to make it say what they want it to say because of there disagreement with Rome and have actually never read the document. For example, there were numerous people here who actually posited that the entire papal infallibility doctrine rest on whether it was Peter and his Confession, Peter as a Rock, Peter himself, etc, etc. Incorrect, and there are 2 other important Petrine text that are also part of it, the Feed my Lambs from John 21 and strengthen your brethren from Luke 22.
Elsie:
No, there are some [many] interpretations of Protestantism that are correct, in so much as it is consistent with the Doctrine held in the Catholic Church and for that matter in the Orthodox Church [which is in general agreement on 99% of what we agree on, minus some differences with the role of the Pope, and certain Dogmatic definitions related to Mary that use Latin Theology exclusively, i.e. the Assumption of Mary vs. the Dormition Mary.
As for the multiple sense of scripture, that means 1) Literal Sense and 2)Allegorical Sense, and the allegorical can be subdivided into the moral, spiritual, anagogical, etc. But all of them have to understood, from the Catholic perspective, as pointing to or not contradicting Doctrine defined via an Ecumenical Council or Papal formal definitive definition whereby a Dogmatic pronouncement is being made [The last example, the Assumption of Mary, etc].
I don’t know what Church you belong to, but what if you read the scriptures and start to have views that contradict the confessional statements of for example, the Augsburg confession [just assuming you were Lutheran]. Would you then say, well, I think my view is correct and not this particular statement in said Augsberg confession. A protestant model, even a good faith protestant, would feel he or she is correct based on his or her reading of scripture and would challenge the confession with maybe his or her pastor and if not resolved, would perhaps go to the a Reformed, or Baptist, or Pentecostal church down the road.
For a orthodox Catholic, that is not in the cards. I do not read scripture to see if I can challenge the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed, I don’t read them to challenge that the Church has defined that God has provided 7 sacraments as the “normative means” thru which he provides the Church and her members the Grace to live the Christian life [and given my some of my less than charitable posts here lately, given that I am a faithful Catholic, I feel quite certain I will confess that I acted somewhat uncharitably towards some protestant folks on the internet].
In-credible! What he states is that this is "showing what sort of a person a Bishop ought to be. And here he does not do it as in the course of his exhortation to Timothy, but addresses all, and instructs others through him." But once again you compel Scripture to say what is needed to support Rome but it does not! First, you do not need Chrysostom to tell you 1 Timothy 3:1-7 refers to the Episcopal Office, that being the same as being a presbyteros/elder, (cf. Tts. 1:5-7) as that is clear enough, while CFs can disagree with each other and do not necessarily mean that is what Rome teaches.
Second, once again you have zero support in Acts onward, descriptive of the church, that the primary and unique function of NT pastors was to consecrate and dispense human flesh and blood by which souls obtained spiritual and eternal life, and as an expiation for sin. And that thus they were titled "priests" by the Holy Spirit. And which manner of omission of what Rome holds is the source and summit of the Christian faith is almost like leaving out any record of apostolic preaching which effected manifest regeneration!
Moreover, even baptism, by which Rome imagines souls become formally justified by their own "infused" holiness, is not shown to be the primary function of the primary evangelist of the church. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Corinthians 1:17)
Do you think that because the NT epistles don’t clearly give that authority to the Presbyters means that as the Apostles died all those functions stopped????????????????
Simply more sophistry! Here you are begging the question, assuming as a conclusion the very thing you cannot show, that of a separate class of "priests" engaging in a uniquely sacrificial function, turning bread and wine into human flesh and dispensing it... Among other things not seen in the NT church.
Acts is called the Acts because it is the acts of the apostles and NT church, but Rome is the invisible church in it and elsewhere. And your argument by such profound silence, and in the light of the description of the function of presbyters impugns the Holy Spirit and Scripture, and adds to it what is not there in the life of the church.
As for Galatians, Chrystostem’s interpretation of the “disagreement between Peter and Paul” is consistent with Saint Jerome’s [point of another thread]
Why is Gal. 2 such a dark chapter to you that you cannot see that Peter was publicly reproved for acting hypocritically? "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." (Galatians 2:13) And whatever Chrysostom says is neither infallible or official RC teaching (and he encouraged personal Bible reading), while the commentary in your own NAB, read for decades, states ,
When Cephas first came to the racially mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch (Gal 2:12), he ate with non-Jews. Pressure from persons arriving later from Jerusalem caused him and Barnabas to draw back. Paul therefore publicly rebuked Peter’s inconsistency toward the gospel (Gal 2:14). Some think that what Paul said on that occasion extends through Gal 2:16, 21.
* [2:11] Clearly was wrong: literally, “stood condemned,” by himself and also by Paul. His action in breaking table fellowship was especially grievous if the eating involved the meal at the Lord’s supper (cf. 1 Cor 11:17–25).
Moreover, stating that "none of the church Fathers say Rome has no apostolic authority - a negative argument - does not translate into the fantasy that the NT church looked to Rome as its leader is absurd, nor is historical descent the basis for authenticity. Nor can it even mean that they all ECFs saw Rome as having unlimited authority and supreme jurisdiction, which even the EO's will argue against. But again, the views of CFs are not determinative of Truth, though they were apparently pious men, but the visible church is never perfect, being an amalgam of true and false believers, unlike the body of Christ.
Saint Chrysostem’s commentary on Titus 1:5-7 indicates that Titus was a Bishop who had jurisdiction over many others in his region, which is consistent with Catholic Ecclesiology.
Which validity does not translate into the Roman hierarchy, and he also states , “In every city,” he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be intrusted to one , but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labor himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the Teacher had not to go about to the presidency of many Churches, but was left to be occupied with one only , and to bring that into order."
But whatever he "indicates," the text and its companion in 1Tim. 3:1-7 simply states the requirements for being a NT pastor, and says nothing about the scope of his jurisdiction.
And again, while you choose Chrysostom, CFs can disagree with each other even in Mt. 16:18, and are not even not binding for Rome, while only Scripture is plenary inspired of God. But you resort to the non-Divine words of men to support reading into Scripture what you can only wish it said. And we know why that is.
Again, Chrysostem’s Homily on Acts 20, the central reason for Paul coming together was too break bread [Eucharist] so I don’t know what you are getting at
More eisegesis. The text says nothing about the Lord's supper, or anything about ceremony but only that they broke bread and ate, which the multitudes did in other non-sacramental events. (Mt. 14:19; 15:36) and Paul did by himself: "And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat." (Act 27:35)
The text simply says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." (Acts 20:11) (Acts 20:7,11)
Breaking bread is hardly a unique or specific term for the Lord's supper, and it is obvious the Lord knows how to describe that as seen in 1Cor. 11:20-34, and while what is indicated here is not a wafer and wine, but the oriental custom of eating a long communal meal. Meanwhile it is preaching that is set forth as the primary function of Paul, and if there is something miraculous about the food eaten it certainly is not manifested. Nor does giving thanks and eating bread necessarily signify the Lord's supper.
I don’t think any of those commentaries in the Church Fathers draw the conclusions you are making regarding Rome. Why is that
Why not ask a cultist why his sources always support him? Yet I can supply quotes from CFs that disagree with you, but what does that prove? They cannot be the basis for your assurance of Truth, nor mine.
Once again, it would seem your RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Schismatic or heretic.
That is not too far once you start with a sinless perpetual virgin who is also made into
an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"
even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
"surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources .
And then you are in the realm of the cults:
An editorial footnote of History of the Church 5:254, quotes Smith as saying: "Come to me; here's the mysteries man hath not seen, Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen." In addition, a secondhand account states that in 1839, Smith had told Zina Diantha Huntington, after the death of her mother, that "not only would she know her mother again on the other side, but 'more than that, you will meet and become acquainted with your eternal Mother, the wife of your Father in Heaven'".[6]:65 In addition, members of the Anointed Quorum, a highly select leadership group in the early church that was privy to Smith's teachings, also acknowledged the existence of a Heavenly Mother.[6]:65–67[7]
In 1845, after the death of Smith, the poet Eliza Roxcy Snow published a poem entitled "My Father in Heaven", (later titled "Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother", now used as the lyrics in the popular Latter-day Saint hymn "O My Father"), which acknowledged the existence of a Heavenly Mother.
Later, church president Joseph F. Smith (a nephew of Joseph Smith) explained his own belief that "God revealed that principle that we have a mother as well as a father in heaven to Joseph Smith
Early leader George Q. Cannon thought that “there is too much of this inclination to deify ‘our mother in heaven,’" arguing that she is not part of the Godhead and that to worship her would diminish from the worship of heavenly father.[14]:78 However, early 20th-century church leader Rudger Clawson disagreed, arguing that “it doesn’t take away from our worship of the Eternal Father, to adore our Eternal Mother .… [W]e honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal prototype.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Mother_%28Mormonism%29
dainel212:
All of those passages regarding breaking bread, you say do not relate to sacramental understanding of the Eucharist. I say they do. You reject the Eucharist, you were not the first. Judas had a hard time with the bread of life discourse in John Chapter 6. Again, the Eucharistic understanding of the those passages are well attested to in every Liturgical account written by the Fathers, starting with the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, just to start. There is no orthodox Father that did not have A Eucharistic Theology within the parameters of orthodoxy, some more developed than others, but it was all there. So when did these guys go off the rail. When did it happen? The Mormons say at the end of the 1st century. when do you say it went wrong. Are Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus all wrong on the Eucharist?
Your views of Baptism and the Catholic view are incorrect. Nothing about infused holiness coming from the person. It is God’s Grace infused into the human person.
And for the record, I agree Peter’s behavior was wrong. I clearly have stated that. What I have disagreed with is that somehow Peter’s behavior being wrong, and Saint Paul calling him on his lack of sharing communion with both Jewish and Gentile Christians was not fostering unity between those 2 different ethnic groups negated his role that Christ gave him in the Gospels [Mt 16:16-18, John 21:15-20, Luke 22:31-32] to be the Chief and leader of the Apostles, not to Lord it over them, but to guide them and keep the Apostles together united in one Church. That is where I disagree. The Point of citing Saint Jerome and Saint Chrystostem is that both of them reviewed the scriptures and the dispute between SS Peter and Paul and neither of them make conclusions that many of you FR Protestant make here and continue to make. Saint Augustine also in Letters with Saint Jerome discussed the same issue and while he clearly stated Peter had sinned, Jerome seemed a little more critical of Paul in this dispute, In his Sermon on why the Church of Rome celebrates the Feast of SS Peter and Paul together, he still recognized Peter as First Among the Apostles, while at the same time honoring the memory of both and stating in essence each were equal in dignity as Apostles. In other words, Jerome, Augustine and Chyrstostem in their commentaries on Galatians never made statements that Peter’s unique role among the Apostles was damaged or his primacy negated. Jerome and Augustine both had high view of hierarchical ecclesiology and each saw Rome as having a Primacy among the Churches.
And you challenge the Church Fathers interpretation of Scriptures and then give your commentary on them. Now, if you were me, who do believe I should take as more credible, the Church Fathers or You?
Daniel212:
Again your views that Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians was not talking about the Eucharist are again not consistent with Church Father commentaries. I have linked Saint Cyril of Jerusalem this time, but there are countless others who have commentaries on these passages that will not support your views.
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Saint Ambrose of Milan is another one that cites 1 Corintians 10:26 [see footnote 17] which equates Saint Paul’s writings to the Eucharist.
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.