FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Successors
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Hello friends... Smile

I've been struggling with the supremacy of Rome. Looking at the typical arguments for Peter's authority from History as well as Divine Institution, it's pretty clear that the Church is founded upon that man, not upon the Faith he confessed. It's perfectly obvious that he was made the supreme center of unity between the Apostles. Something nags, however.

The Isaiah prophecy of Shebna's sin & Eliakim's reception of the keys is certainly related to Peter; however, Shebna held the keys, was wicked, lost them, and was replaced. If the office of Shebna & Eliakim = Peter, then if Peter is wicked, can't he be cast out just as Shebna was, and replaced with another? What if Christ meant to build the Church upon the Man Peter, and not the Office Peter?

It's clear that Matthias succeeded Judas' bishopric, but Matthias was not the same man as Judas. Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., are not the same persons. Peter is Peter, and Linus is Linus, down the line. Where do we see the rationale in Scripture & Tradition that the office of Peter is inherited exactly, completely, fully, and without diminution by his successors?

Please feel free to use the saints to make a point. I appreciate it. Smile
The Church does not say that they are the same person. She says they have the same job.

Are William the Conqueror and Elizabeth II the same person?

Do they occupy the same position at law?

Fidelis sum ad Roma,

Let's not use secular examples. We do not say the entire English nation is built upon William the Conqueror - and indeed, Elizabeth II is of a different royal house than the House of Normandy.

Do you know if the ancient Greek of Matthew 16 uses the word "build" in a perfect future tense or imperfect? That is, could the Lord have meant that He would build the Church once-and-for-all upon the One Man Peter, or could He have meant that He would go on building it on Peter(s) through the ages?

Peter lived and died once. He was the foundation of the Church, but the Lord said "upon you", not "upon you and those who follow you", or "upon you and your successors".A building has only one foundation laid, once for all, and then the construction takes place. Christ builds the structure, but the "One Peter" is laid already. How can every Pope be 100% The Rock? That would mean there is no Church during sede vacante!
And Peter did not lose the keys. His lawful successors cannot lose the keys.

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church of Christ.

If the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ then where is she?

Is she found among the nest of contracepting, saint blaspheming, martyr killing Protestant heretics with their made up 16th century (or even later in the case of Evangelicalism!) ravings?

Is she found among the nest of contracepting, schismatic, pathologically antiquarian, icon worshipping, ethnic cults of the "Orthodox?"

This is an unpleasant moment in the Church's history. Men cannot help but have real moments of doubt, but if the Church is not what she says she is then our Lord cannot be who He says He is.  The Church of Christ need not be hunted for she is a city set atop a hill. She cannot be hid.  None of the other contenders teach morally or doctrinally what Christ taught. Their worship is offensive to God and their claims are lies.

"In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph"

You posted while I was writing the above:

1. Oikodomeo is the Greek. It suggests to me something like "I will be constantly building" but I am no scholar. Even the Latin of my name is wrong.
2. The Church is monarchical in her constitution, but she can survive without her earthly head. (because her Permanent Head lives always)
3. As for every Pope being 100% the Rock, the Papacy is the Rock, not Alexander VI, St Pius X, or Francis (I).
And  this. You are Petros (Rock) and on this Petra (Rock)--the difference in endings is for gendered reasons. Though Petros means "pebble" and PETRA means giant stone. (a useful way of thinking of popes and the papacy still though)

We should also not neglect "Ekklesia" (out-called ones, as in those who have been called out of the world). And let us remember that Ekklesia is not promised merely in this verse what her destiny will be. Everywhere in Scripture we find Ekklesia and her types as the Bride, the Obsession, the Free Woman (in opposition to Old Israel which has become the "Bondwoman/slave"). The Church is promised glory and clarity, she is given a role in judging the world, she's a thing He's jealous over. She's something that God almost seems to hunger for. And yet in her very foundation what do we see? A promise of the Holy Ghost and the association with Petrine ministry as her base and foundation.

If you are very interested in a Biblical theology of the Church and Peter I'll take some time to write something properly referenced.
Thank you friend. Smile

All this boils down not to the question "does the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter directly?" (for this is manifest in Irenaeus and other Fathers), but rather "is the Bishop of Rome equivalent to Peter in every detail"? Clearly Peter is already distinct from the Popes in that he is One Of The Twelve, and the Bishops of Rome are not treated as Apostles, strictly speaking. Already, then, we see that each Pope is not "fully" what Peter was - is that correct or incorrect?

The Lord never said "on you and on those who follow you", or "on you and on your successors", so where do we get the idea of full-equivalence of Peter with Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Sixtus, Leo, Gregory, etc.?
(04-06-2013, 11:07 AM)Laetare Wrote: [ -> ]...
The Isaiah prophecy of Shebna's sin & Eliakim's reception of the keys is certainly related to Peter; however, Shebna held the keys, was wicked, lost them, and was replaced. If the office of Shebna & Eliakim = Peter, then if Peter is wicked, can't he be cast out just as Shebna was, and replaced with another?...

Yes, in a sense, but by Our Lord, not us. He determines, according to His own judgements, when to pull them from office. i.e. - they die.
(04-06-2013, 01:29 PM)Laetare Wrote: [ -> ]The Lord never said "on you and on those who follow you", or "on you and on your successors", so where do we get the idea of full-equivalence of Peter with Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Sixtus, Leo, Gregory, etc.?

The full equivalence comes from them inhabiting the Petrine Office.  They are given all the authority of St. Peter.  Think of what it would be like if this was not the case.  It would mean that the Church only possessed the Keys until St. Peter died.  Further, if only St. Peter himself was raised above the other Apostles, then there would be no earthly head of the Church at all because all the bishops would be equal.  It would be some split up concoction like the various Orthodox churches. 
The only logical conclusion must be that all the authority of St. Peter is handed down to those who assume his perpetual office.

Another thought.  The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and obtain their authority, why would the successor of St. Peter be different?


This is why I like this forum.  This is a real discussion and an interesting topic.  Of course, my arguments could be idiotic, but I'm trying.
(04-06-2013, 04:18 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]by Our Lord, not us. He determines, according to His own judgements, when to pull them from office. i.e. - they die.

Is that the nature & substance of the passage? Shebna is of a different house or family than Eliakim. It wasn't just a matter of one "Pope" dying and another coming in; rather, it was as if Peter's line was suddenly replaced by Mark's line. That's what is so disconcerting about this use of Isaiah 22:20 to defend the Papacy, in my opinion.

(04-06-2013, 04:36 PM)ImperialGuardsman Wrote: [ -> ]It would mean that the Church only possessed the Keys until St. Peter died.  Further, if only St. Peter himself was raised above the other Apostles, then there would be no earthly head of the Church at all because all the bishops would be equal.  It would be some split up concoction like the various Orthodox churches.

It certainly would not necessarily mean that the Church only possessed the keys until Peter died, for in Matthew 18 the keys are given to all the Apostles. I believe the second-person plural pronoun is used by the Lord in verse 18 of that chapter. It somewhat defeats the idea that Peter alone received the keys. Regardless, Peter still received the commandment of the Foundation.

The Orthodox are united in communion, so there's no real split apparently.

Quote:Another thought.  The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and obtain their authority, why would the successor of St. Peter be different?

They all obtain to the Apostolic Authority by virtue of consecration to the episcopate. That would probably be the Orthodox & High Anglican view. Yours is a good point, however, since Peter was "The" Apostle of the Apostles.

Quote:This is why I like this forum.  This is a real discussion and an interesting topic.  Of course, my arguments could be idiotic, but I'm trying.

Never stop trying, brother. It is all helpful.
(04-06-2013, 05:41 PM)Laetare Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-06-2013, 04:18 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]by Our Lord, not us. He determines, according to His own judgements, when to pull them from office. i.e. - they die.

Is that the nature & substance of the passage? Shebna is of a different house or family than Eliakim. It wasn't just a matter of one "Pope" dying and another coming in; rather, it was as if Peter's line was suddenly replaced by Mark's line. That's what is so disconcerting about this use of Isaiah 22:20 to defend the Papacy, in my opinion.
It was the transfer of another "line" into the office of prime minister by God in the OT. Which I would say foreshadowed Our Lord transferring authority from the Jewish authorities into the person of Peter and his successors. The office is.perpetual until Our Lord comes back in glory on the last day.

I thought you were asking about bad popes and was saying it is God Himself who would "take em out". Sorry if I am still missing the question.

Pages: 1 2