Where in scripture does it say that "Peter's chair" is the head of the church on Earth? I thought the only person named the head of the church was Our Lord Christ.
St Peter was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome. Why does not the successor of St Peter from the line in Antioch claim universal supremacy over the Church? His See is older than the See in Rome. Maybe that successor understood something Rome did not? Where did St Peter claim such power? I don't believe he ever did. But would like to know if he did. I think he would have taken Jesus' warning about power to heart. While tradition and teaching are good and acceptable, the teaching must be supported by scripture and the St Vincent canon. Blessings Fr. Mark
This is only my personal view. But is not the Roman Catholic teaching that the Pope claims his supremacy through the line in scripture "And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." Matthew 16:18, and then the tradition following the 1054 AD schism that the Pope should take the highest position of the Church. As an Anglican I see the Pope as the 'Primus Inter Pares' in relation to the five Patriarchs and Archbishops. Must all teaching be supported by scripture or is it that any belief must not be contradicting of scripture. Is the Anglican belief Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura? God Bless
Not at all brother, I believe that when Christ said"...thou art Peter...." etc, is the institution of the papacy
Straight from Ignatius, BISHOP of Antioch in the year 110 AD: Ignatius of Antioch You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Even if St. Peter were given a special honor among the Apostles by virtue this verse (which I do not believe to be the case), what scriptural evidence compels us to believe this special charism extends to any of the Bishops of Rome, some of whom were quite debauched, irreligious, and downright blasphemous?
I take it you have not read the letters of Ignatius to the Churches. You or your source incorrectly add (the See of Rome). The Greek does not have this addition. If you have read the letters you would notice something interesting. Ignatius uses similar language to all the Churches. In his letter to the Ephesians he also commends them on their teaching authority in Chapter 10 verse 2. You can find similar language in the letters to the other Churches. You will also find exhortations to all the Churches, including Roman, to stand fast in the Gospel. Also, he never names a Bishop in Rome as he names other clergy from the other Churches. Like St Paul in his letter to the Romans, no Bishop is named. I would think, would you not, if he felt he was subject to the Bishop of Rome he would at least mention him in greeting. So you example does not prove your point and does not answer my question. Your link in post #11 is not proof of Rome's authority over all Bishops. Lists the Popes, ok. This work says there is no record of a Bishop in Constantinople before the 7th Century. Really? It makes equally silly claims about the other Sees of Christianity. From our Orthodox brothers a list of the Bishops of Constantinople https://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Constantinople The first Bishop on the list is St Andrew the Apostle. The brother of St Peter. Stephen K Ray, post #10, is not a theologian nor a historian. He is a pop apologist who confuses Catholic to mean Roman Catholic and looks at the early church through a Roman lens. Fr. Christopher Viscardi, S.J (Dept of Theology Chair Spring Hill College) spent many months teaching me and other clergy not to read into the past and scripture. Not to look at it through the lens of our being, which forces us to read into and not to view and think critically. You want the Bishop of Rome to have monarchical authority over the other Bishops. Something Jesus warns against in Matthew 20:24-28. You can look it up, but to paraphrase, the gentiles lord and seek authority. Do not do that. which of you wants to be great be the servant. whoever desires to be first among you, let him be the slave. Mr Ray, like you and far too many Romans believe if an early church father shows respect to the Bishop of Rome they automatically looked to him being the "king" of all the Bishops. That which Jesus warned against. Anglicans look at Rome as another Bishop. Some better than others. Some look at Rome as first among equals. Rome has no more and no less authority over all of Christianity than does the Bishop of Jerusalem or the Bishop of North Dakota. There is no evidence otherwise. I read the blurb of Mr Ray's Book linked above. He takes the words of his "adversary" and twists them. Mr Webster agrees there is a line of Succession from Peter. Mr Ray takes that and runs with it twisting it into Mr Webster has no proof to deny Rome's primacy over all the Church. Since we can't see Mr Webster's complete reply....not fair or honest on Mr Ray's part. Mr Ray asserts Rome has the right to "rule" over the Church. His words, find them in the article, which seems to ignore the warnings of Jesus, as I have paraphrased above. If you believe what Rome teaches, I am happy for you. Go become Roman. I was Roman. I studied in Roman schools. I do not see any evidence of the monarchical, supremacy of Rome over all of Christianity. I see people taking snippets from the early church to try and say that is the case. Was the early church catholic? Yes I agree. Was it Roman? No. Do Roman Catholics, looking through the lens of their experience, believe every reference to catholic, bishop, pope or Rome validates their belief that Rome is the monarchical ruler of Christianity? Yes. Are they correct? No. There is no evidence of this outside of a very narrow view. Mr. Ray's videos on the Holy Land are worth watching. My family viewed them a few months ago and found them informational and very interesting. Blessings Fr. Mark
Anglican belief is Prima Scriptura. You are correct Rome does teach that passage as the authority of the Pope being the monarchical ruler over all of Christianity. Which Jesus seems to contradict in the 20th Chapter of Matthew. The Church has never decreed Rome has the highest position of the Church. Pope Damasus I (366-384) was the first to claim primacy of Rome rest solely on Peter. Leo the Great in 440, used Roman law to make the Bishop of Rome the legal heir to Peter. Everything that was Peter's is passed to his heir, the successive Bishops of Rome. Roman Emperors Theodusius II and Valentinean III made secular and legal pronouncements that Rome was the leader of the Church "Rector of the whole Church." Outside of Rome, the legal community of Rome and certain Roman Emperors, the Church never declared Rome to have any of the power it has claimed. None of the Councils of the entire Church ever gave Rome that power. Some actually made sure to note in the canons or prefaces of the decrees that Rome was no more powerful than any other See of the Church. Blessings Fr. Mark
And did you not read the Orthodox priests who took issue with the author for misrepresenting and taking the Early Fathers out of context and misleading the readers. I have already shown you with Ignatius how he was taken out of context by you. You do not engage, just link another page that backs your position. It is very easy to link, but very difficult to actually read the original documents without following an authors commentary that you agree with. Have you actually read the entirety of the Early or Apostolic Fathers works...or are you content with snippets and accepting what other people tell you to believe. Read all of Ignatius letters to the different Church's. They are not that long, you should be able to read all 6 in about an hour. This link is just another attempt to take the Early Fathers and focus on one or two sentences to "prove" a point. I use to see this when I was a Southern Baptist. Blessings Fr. Mark
My Greek professor gave out a short paper about Mt. 16:18. His main point was that the grammatical genders do not match in such a way as to make the text about St. Peter. I will see if I can find where I have it saved because it is not a highly technical read and I know he will not object to its circulation. But I firmly believe the keys were granted to all of the apostles -that is the message of Pentecost. They all preached, even though Peter's words are what St. Luke has chosen to pass down in the Acts.
The Linguistic Argument That Jesus Did Not Build His Church on Peter. Can. Paul K. Hubbard, D.Th. In the Greek, it is much easier to see that Christ is not making a statement about building his Church on Peter (or Cephas, the rock-heart), but upon the faith of Simon Barjonah. When Christ says: upon this “petras” (rock), I will build my church, we can see that both “this” and “petras” are feminine. These words therefore do not easily agree with “Petros” (Peter), which is masculine. Matthew should be read: “You are Peter, but upon this rock (feminine “this” and feminine “rock”) I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her.” The nearest feminine noun which “this” can agree with is “faith” (16:8) – which makes perfect sense. “ It is upon this [faith] that I will build my church.” “But upon this rock…” The conjunction, kai, in this case, should be translated as “but” not as “and.” Matthew sometimes uses “kai” such that it should be translated as introducing the surprising or unexpected : “But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of you, and/but (kai) you come to me?” “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and/but (kai) your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they?; Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And/but (kai) one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.” Mark also uses kai this way: “And they sought to lay hold on him, but (kai) feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.” Paul does too: “As unknown, and/but (kai) well known; as dying, and/but (kai), behold, we live; as chastened, and/but (kai) not killed…”
Thank you for sharing Canon Hubbards interpretation, very interesting. (I wonder was his mum "old mother Hubbard")