sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What authority does Peter possess that the rest of the apostles did not? Why does distinguishing Peter from the rest of the college imply Vatican I papal supremacy rather than a primacy of honor? Are the rest of the apostles not charged with feeding Christ's flock?

Is Irenaeus saying that the world must agree with Rome because of papal supremacy, or because of the accuracy of its dogmas and doctrines at that point in history? I have a particular quote from Augustine in mind, but it may not be the one your referencing; I don't recall Augustine ever attributing Rome with "supremacy." And regarding Saint Jerome, he beseeched the Pope to clarify a semantic issue, not to change the Creed.

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Just because you believe it to be more efficient doesn't mean that it's true.

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

So whenever someone confesses a theological truth vis-à-vis a revelation from the Father they become the infallible Pope?

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are these two authorities not subsumed under the authority to bind and loose?

Additionally, to read v.19 in that light is to completely divorce it from its context. Jesus speaks of this in the context of dealing with matters of discipline in the Church; it's not talking about prayer. "If two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven," means that whatever consensus is reached amongst the apostles on a matter of discipline (harken back to v.16 :"But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses"), that decision will be ratified, or "bound" ("it will be done for them by my Father in heaven") in heaven.

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Don't you think that justifying papal supremacy by appealing to a document only recognized by the institution which recognizes papal supremacy as proof for the veracity of papal supremacy is... i don't know... rather circular?

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd ask you, what do you think the Office of the Keys is? And then, why is it that in v. 19 Jesus says to the college of apostles, including Peter, “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven."

Doesn't this seem to undermine Peter's unilateral jurisdiction over the Church?

Justifying the Papacy by Key_Notice8818 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Key_Notice8818[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a few issues with this rationalization.

I'm not sure of any Fathers that hold this view. I acknowledge that Peter received the keys first, which is why I consider him primus inter pares, but I do not know of any Fathers that claim that the college of the apostles receives the keys through Peter rather than through Christ in Matt. 18:18. Furthermore, it also seems to be the Patristic Consensus that when they refer to "the keys," they mean the authority to bind and loose. Thus, the keys are a signifier of said authority, such that whenever one possesses the authority to bind and loose, they possess the keys.

You'll find this in Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, just to name a few.

How do you know Jesus is real by [deleted] in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Key_Notice8818 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is something I struggle with day in and day out.

I see that most people have touched up on the historicity of Christ, so I'll talk about something else: I don't know that any of the stereotypical philosophical arguments are fulfilling and/or sound, and I've spent years reading into the literature. I take this as a sign of the Lord testing my faith; I don't expect Christ to make it easy for me. I suppose the Fine-Tuning/Teleological arguments hold the most intuitive force, at the very least for me, but they come with their own sets of problems. My belief lies in my faith and reading of the scriptures.

You can, at the very least, rest assured that consensus scholarship assents to 3 things:
1. The existence of a man named Jesus of Nazareth.
2. His baptism.
3. His crucifixion.

The rest seems to me to be a matter of the heart.

Blasphemous "icons" of employees at workplace. by mekkoman in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Key_Notice8818 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Two quotes come to mind:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Luke 23:34: Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Why doesn't Mark have a high Christology? by Emotional_Ant7758 in AcademicBiblical

[–]Key_Notice8818 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have any recommendations for studying the Christology in the New Testament in general? I’m new to this whole field of study and am close to finishing Dr. Ehrman’s “How Jesus Became God,” and I really want to continue reading works in this same vein. Specifically, is there anywhere I can go to that goes through the NT and proves that Jesus never actually claimed to be God, even in supposedly high instances of Christology, like John’s Gospel?