So if the people of Antioch had murdered Peter in Antioch then Antioch would be the highest authority of the Church?
Because Antiochians weren't murderers, they aren't the highest authority? How does that make sense?
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread
- Thread starter PurpleUrkel
- Start date
So if the people of Antioch had murdered Peter in Antioch then Antioch would be the highest authority of the Church?
Because Antiochians weren't murderers, they aren't the highest authority? How does that make sense?
We can agree on Peter being the rock yes?
Just because Peter set up a bishop on Antioch does not mean the bishop is leader of the church considering Peter put him in that position while he was still alive.
Peter then took up his role as mortal leader of the Church in Rome - so his successor should take up his work in that location.
Of course there is a line of succession in Antioch as well but these are less significant due to the primacy of Peter and the fact that he did his ministry in Rome.
Some would also argue the fact he died there and that Paul also died there. It isn't so much the death itself so much as that this was the last place he presided over and therefore the successors should continue from there.
Saw this on lifesitenews: Francis hints at a new understanding of papacy:
www.lifesitenews.com
My first thought: is it possible the role could be officially rolled back to something more in line with Orthodoxy? A new development of doctrine to clip the authority of the papacy? I suspect it's not going to move in a traditional or Orthodox understanding of a bishop since Francis was addressing the Anglicans. I bet he'll do the same exact thing they did with blessing homosexuals (try to keep it straight "in the books" while simultaneously subverting the entire meaning of "what's in the books")
Francis says this: “for this reason, it is necessary to engage in ‘a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind,’ strives to understand how the Petrine ministry can develops as a service of love for all.”
so..... my translation: he's striving to understand how the Petrine ministry can develop in service for globohomo.
Francis also quotes Pope St. Gregory the Great to stress the importance of the Pope being a servant. It's interesting/ironic (or maybe fitting in a strange way?) he's quoting Gregory in particular considering what St. Gregory said elsewhere warning about the consequences of a bishop making himself a universal bishop and putting himself above the others.
Pope Francis hints at new ‘understanding’ of papacy during meeting with Anglican leaders - LifeSite
The Pontiff’s speech to the Anglicans held a revolutionary possibility: namely, a decision by Francis to use the papacy itself as an ecumenical bargaining tool, in a manner which could appear to undermine the authority wielded by the Pope.
www.lifesitenews.com
My first thought: is it possible the role could be officially rolled back to something more in line with Orthodoxy? A new development of doctrine to clip the authority of the papacy? I suspect it's not going to move in a traditional or Orthodox understanding of a bishop since Francis was addressing the Anglicans. I bet he'll do the same exact thing they did with blessing homosexuals (try to keep it straight "in the books" while simultaneously subverting the entire meaning of "what's in the books")
Francis says this: “for this reason, it is necessary to engage in ‘a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind,’ strives to understand how the Petrine ministry can develops as a service of love for all.”
so..... my translation: he's striving to understand how the Petrine ministry can develop in service for globohomo.
Francis also quotes Pope St. Gregory the Great to stress the importance of the Pope being a servant. It's interesting/ironic (or maybe fitting in a strange way?) he's quoting Gregory in particular considering what St. Gregory said elsewhere warning about the consequences of a bishop making himself a universal bishop and putting himself above the others.
Last edited:
Genealogist
Catholic
This is another recurring theme that comes up every so often in the context of ecumenism. The Chair of St. Peter is the Chair of Unity. All must rally around it, all must submit to it. Both unity and orthodoxy will be found in submission to the (valid) Roman Pontiff. Bergoglio and his Vatican II religion consider the Papacy an obstacle to unity, when in actual fact - and traditional Catholic teaching is clear on that - it is its necessary condition and ultimate guarantee.Saw this on lifesitenews: Francis hints at a new understanding of papacy:
Pope Francis hints at new ‘understanding’ of papacy during meeting with Anglican leaders - LifeSite
The Pontiff’s speech to the Anglicans held a revolutionary possibility: namely, a decision by Francis to use the papacy itself as an ecumenical bargaining tool, in a manner which could appear to undermine the authority wielded by the Pope.
Lifesite news is a sede rag not worthwhile news. In an effort to be his own religion Weston sets himself up as Pope to decide what is Catholic or not. Just like every single sede position, "I'm so holy I know better than Rome". Every single thing taken out of context to feel good about being schismatic.
Genealogist
Catholic
LifeSite news is most decidedly NOT sedevacantist.
Narekatsi
Oriental Orthodox
Doctrinal dicastery says transsexuals can be baptized
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document approved by Pope Francis, explained the circumstances under which a transgender person could be ba...
Finally,
To my RC brethren: All of the above sounds very concerning. Why would any of the above be permitted "under certain conditions" or following "pastoral prudence"? What does that even mean?
These are genuine questions. I'm extremely concerned that the largest operating Church body in the world is issuing vague guidance like this, on actions that are clearly sinful.
If I've misunderstood or misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me and point to other official resources. This is something where I truly wish to be mistaken.
Genealogist
Catholic
The way Francis likes to change church teaching is by (1) leaving the official teaching formally untouched, yet (2) changing it in the practical order through the backdoor by undermining it with "pastoral accompaniment". That's more effective and allows him to claim doctrine wasn't changed. https://novusordowatch.org/2023/11/vatican-opens-way-for-transgender-baptisms-godparents-witnesses/Doctrinal dicastery says transsexuals can be baptized
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document approved by Pope Francis, explained the circumstances under which a transgender person could be ba...www.usccb.org
Finally,
To my RC brethren: All of the above sounds very concerning. Why would any of the above be permitted "under certain conditions" or following "pastoral prudence"? What does that even mean?
These are genuine questions. I'm extremely concerned that the largest operating Church body in the world is issuing vague guidance like this, on actions that are clearly sinful.
If I've misunderstood or misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me and point to other official resources. This is something where I truly wish to be mistaken.
Oh most definitely. You're all the same peas in a pod. Weston, big gay Michael Voris, Patrick Coffin, Marshall Taylor. All apparently given a secret calling by God to slander the Holy Father because they know better than the Magisterium and need to have tantrums over things they just don't understand. More likely though it just makes them money but I digress. Very jewey cult like behavior. Sede, schismatic, heretical, whatever you want to call it. None of them pose any risk to the faith but it's good to let people know they only spread filth and propaganda so they're not led astray.
A lot of people are unaware that the "pillars" that St. Paul refers to is the inner circle, and that is Peter, James and John (it's not random or accidental that those three are there during His Transfiguration). What's more, Peter is clearly questioning why John gets to live longer, and Christ tells him that's not his business. I'm not trying to put forth any type of argument here except to do the thought experiment that you can make that it was John that was his "favorite son." A breakaway church that claimed John was the "best" would have even greater grounds than Peter, if one wanted to make a silly argument like that.
The point is that none of the apostles lack anything, they are all universal teachers of the faith. Anyone who loves Christ and is a member of his body has unity with the other members of his body.
The point is that none of the apostles lack anything, they are all universal teachers of the faith. Anyone who loves Christ and is a member of his body has unity with the other members of his body.
Yes, the entire premise for the "Primacy of Peter" is heresy.
Mark
42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark
42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Genealogist
Catholic
Actual Orthodox theologians and scholars disagree with you. For example, in His Broken Body, Fr. Cleenewerck - an OCA priest - describes the doctrine of Petrine primacy as theologumenon, i.e. acceptable opinion, in the Eastern church, which was accepted by a number of those whom the Orthodox commemorates as saints. Moreover, he states that what Orthodox Christians need to realize is that "Rome's vision of primacy rests on a credible biblical and patristic case that cannot be dismissed without due consideration." - His Broken Body, p. 256.
^ What you fail to understand was that in the East, the "Primacy of Peter" meant something completely different - it meant the right to serve all other Churches, not rule over them, as Christ instructed.
Naturally, given that Rome was a rich city, most Christians believed Rome should send money and help spread the faith as a seat of Peter. Not rule over them like a dictator.
Christ's definition of being a leader is 100% opposite of what men think being a leader is, as the quote from Mark above illustrates.
Naturally, given that Rome was a rich city, most Christians believed Rome should send money and help spread the faith as a seat of Peter. Not rule over them like a dictator.
Christ's definition of being a leader is 100% opposite of what men think being a leader is, as the quote from Mark above illustrates.
Here is some added context for Fr. Cleenewerck's work. These are quotes from him on his website:
Clipped from here:
Genealogist
Catholic
You do understand that to rule over and to serve are not mutually exclusive concepts, right?
That is why one of the official titles used by the Roman Pontiffs is SERVUS SERVORUM DEI - that is, "the Servant of the servants of God".
Genealogist
Catholic
The implication being...?
Are Roman Catholics content having Pope Francis rule over them?
Peter is the rock. Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom. Pretty clear and not heresy.
Nope that's why we join SSPX.
How does SSPX relate to Peter?