Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[Porknpie]

After having my coffee this morning…looking at what Iraneus actually said about Peter and Paul …“founded and organized” …could also be read that Peter founded and Paul organized or both did it together. They were working together in Rome. Also is clear through the ECFs and scripture that the Church was built upon St Peter and the chair of St Peter can be traced by back in line of succession from the current, newly elected Pope to St Peter.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

:coffeeread:

I thought it would be of interest to add the below:

Regarding Peter and Paul being together at the same time in Rome, I understand that there is uncertainty on this fact. The attached short article speaks to the possible timing of St. Peter’s martyrdom. Was he martyred in 64 or 67 ad? Did St. Paul arrive in Rome around 62Ad (imprisoned) and was he martyred in 65-67 ad? Overlapping dates seem to support a tradition that they were in Rome at the same time with St. Peter arriving earlier than St Paul.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM

The Scott Hahn link below outlines St Paul’s missionary journeys & timing.

scotthahn.com/download/attachment/1514

 

[guanophore]

 Ironic then that the best I could do with all Adam's "good" bestowments was to realize I was "bad" and had no righteousness- I was naked as Adam after the fall, hiding.

I don’t find this ironic at all. Our inability to see ourselves and other human beings as persons of dignity created in the image and likeness of God is part of the Fall.

And even that realization was a pure, gracious gift.

Yes, God gives us the ability to see ourselves as He sees us.

forget calvin

Happily!

 He was born again before he was born again ? He was regenerate as much as you can outside of hearing the gospel.

This does not make any sense. Either you are born, or you are not. One cannot be “as much as you can” born! That is like saying a woman is “about as pregnant as she can be before…”

Maybe he was about to become a Jew, certainly Jews were capable of regeneration before Jesus. They did have the Court of the Gentiles in the temple-a place for "catechumen’ of sorts maybe .Don’t know really.

I have wondered this too. He certainly was a “God-fearer” and devout. He was humble about calling upon a peasant Jew to learn.

Need yes, desire no. Absolutely

1"You are of the elect" , “I have chosen you ,you have not chosen me”, “Predestined since before the foundations of the world”

Human beings are created with an innate desire to seek God and desire Him. This is how we are made. As St. Augustine says “our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee”.

 

[brb3]

I thought it would be of interest to add the below:

Regarding Peter and Paul being together at the same time in Rome, I understand that there is uncertainty on this fact. The attached short article speaks to the possible timing of St. Peter’s martyrdom. Was he martyred in 64 or 67 ad? Did St. Paul arrive in Rome around 62Ad (imprisoned) and was he martyred in 65-67 ad? Overlapping dates seem to support a tradition that they were in Rome at the same time with St. Peter arriving earlier than St Paul.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETEMART.HTM

The Scott Hahn link below outlines St Paul’s missionary journeys & timing.

scotthahn.com/download/attachment/1514

Porknpie …

Excellent find …EWTN link !

Peter in Rome in 42 AD …and died in 64AD in Nero’s circuses…at Vatican site… where St Peters Basilica is ??

G4 …what have you on this ??

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie …

Excellent find …EWTN link !

Peter in Rome in 42 AD …and died in 64AD in Nero’s circuses…at Vatican site… where St Peters Basilica is ??

G4 …what have you on this ??

For those interested, the following book is an excellent read on the history of Vatican hill and the excavation of ground below St. Peter’s Bascilica. St. Peter’s remains were found just where Tradition held them to be…under the High Altar. The current church is not the first church on this spot. The previous church was there for nearly 1,000 years. There’s a reason it is/was called St. Peter’s and not St. Paul’s and not St. Peter & Paul’s. Even though the latter is the name of a church I attended in my youth.

amazon.com/Bones-Peter-John-Evangelist-Walsh/dp/1933184752

Pork

 

[Porknpie]

Slow down .Before we get to Eusebius Iraneus nowhere says the church was built on Peter alone etc

.It is built on the Apostles -(12-me and Revelations)), and in Rome by Peter and Paul alike.

Iraneus didn’t have to say anything. Eusebius was repeating what Christ already said.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Also…interesting to note that St. Paul always calls Peter “Cephas” not Simon. It is the title of honor given by Christ above.

Galatians 1
18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days

1 Corinthians 9
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas

 

[brb3]

Porknpie…

Ordered the Bones/Peter book.

Now, in Acts 21, when Paul returns to Jerusalem for final time…he is met by James the Just & the Elders. No mention of Peter.
James the Lesser, was Bishop of Jerusalem. …while Peter was away in Roma, serving there as Head Bishop & Pope !

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie…

Ordered the Bones/Peter book.

Now, in Acts 21, when Paul returns to Jerusalem for final time…he is met by James the Just & the Elders. No mention of Peter.
James the Lesser, was Bishop of Jerusalem. …while Peter was away in Roma, serving there as Head Bishop & Pope !

Brb3 -

Glad to hear you ordered the book. It’s a light, enjoyable read. I particularly found highly interesting all the inscriptions near and at his burial location and how the early Christians wanted to be buried near him. And of course…how his remains were directly under the high altar as tradition taught.

 

[pocohombre]

That’s a shame, pocohombre, to rest upon only their writings. That leaves you at a great deficit, does it not, to not be privy to ALL of the apostles’ teachings?

St. Paul preached in the temple for a period of 3 months. Would that we could have sat at his feet and hear EVERYTHING he preached, rather than just the things that were written.

Oh, wait! Catholics proclaim that we are able, indeed, able to have access to his preachings in their entirety. That’s called Sacred Tradition.

So, you disagree with Barnabus ?

 

[PRmerger]

So, you disagree with Barnabus ?

I disagree with Barnabus? Barnabus who? The one who wrote the uninspired Gospel of Barnabas?

 

[guanophore]

I disagree with Barnabus? Barnabus who? The one who wrote the uninspired Gospel of Barnabas?

Actually the Epistle of Barnabas is a good read.

It was considered for inclusion in the NT because it was read in the early Masses.
Barnabas, a Levite, is also considered as a possible candidate as the author of Hebrews.

 

[brb3]

Actually the Epistle of Barnabas is a good read.

It was considered for inclusion in the NT because it was read in the early Masses.
Barnabas, a Levite, is also considered as a possible candidate as the author of Hebrews.

Very doubtful he authored Hebrews. Compare the writing styles. Much more c/w St. Paul.

Who better to write the primo Epistle to the Jews, …than the primo writer of letters…and the former primo Pharisee Jew.

 

[pocohombre]

I disagree with Barnabus? Barnabus who? The one who wrote the uninspired Gospel of Barnabas?

Shall I remeber that line next time an early father writes something I don’t agree with ? …but you are right, they are not Holy Scripture.

 

[brb3]

Shall I remeber that line next time an early father writes something I don’t agree with ? …but you are right, they are not Holy Scripture.

So, Poco …

Then, scripture is your final authority …u able to fully decide what it means w/o help of ECF’s & Church declarations of doctrine ?

 

[pocohombre]

So, Poco …

Then, scripture is your final authority …u able to fully decide what it means w/o help of ECF’s & Church declarations of doctrine ?

As an old Catholic friend used to say about many issues, it is not either or, but all things should illiluminate scripture and vice versa. If you want a pecking order, scripture trumps all, and the final illumination of all things is the Author Himself. Without Him we mess up what scripture says, what apostles may have said, what fathers have said, what parents have said, what presbyters, priests, teachers, mother nature have said, ad infinitum.

 

[Porknpie]

As an old Catholic friend used to say about many issues, it is not either or, but all things should illiluminate scripture and vice versa. If you want a pecking order, scripture trumps all, and the final illumination of all things is the Author Himself. Without Him we mess up what scripture says, what apostles may have said, what fathers have said, what parents have said, what presbyters, priests, teachers, mother nature have said, ad infinitum.

And based on the bold above, you should believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

To believe the bread and wine is only "symbolic’ as a meal is to “mess up what scripture says” as you say.

 

[pablope]

As an old Catholic friend used to say about many issues, it is not either or, but all things should illiluminate scripture and vice versa. If you want a pecking order, scripture trumps all, and the final illumination of all things is the Author Himself.

Without Him we mess up what scripture says, what apostles may have said, what fathers have said, what parents have said, what presbyters, priests, teachers, mother nature have said, ad infinitum.

So…those who disagree with your interpretation then…would you say they are without Him?

And following what you said…who among the thousand interpretations out there…who would you say truly professes Him?

 

[brb3]

As an old Catholic friend used to say about many issues, it is not either or, but all things should illiluminate scripture and vice versa. If you want a pecking order, scripture trumps all, and the final illumination of all things is the Author Himself. Without Him we mess up what scripture says, what apostles may have said, what fathers have said, what parents have said, what presbyters, priests, teachers, mother nature have said, ad infinitum.

Don’t ya subscribe to the HS, as inspiration of all scripture ?

And, that Christ gave the HS to his Church, to decipher what the earliest fathers said/wrote ? The Church being those Bishops and members of their flocks …who received the oral tradition(al) meaning of the early Apostles’ writings and oral instructions.
Christ having set the Primus & Primo example for his Apostles & Church …teaching by word & deed, not leaving personal writings to them.

So, there you have it, TRADITIONS taught to the Apostles was THE crucial KEY to understanding Christ & his Soteriology …only a small fraction of which survives in written form. Thus, TRADITION WAS MAMMOTH to they, and to the Church then & now.

 

[PRmerger]

Shall I remeber that line next time an early father writes something I don’t agree with ?

What “line” are you referring to?

…but you are right, they are not Holy Scripture.

And think about this, poco. How is it that you know that the writings of Barnabas are “not Holy Scripture”?

What is your answer to that?

 

[pocohombre]

And based on the bold above, you should believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

To believe the bread and wine is only "symbolic’ as a meal is to “mess up what scripture says” as you say.

Another topic worthy of much dialogue. Fathers are split -wasn’ t settled till what 12-13th century ? Sometimes the elements are referred as body/blood, sometimes loaf/bread/cup. Sometimes real presence is Jesus is there in spirit and some say He is in elements . For sure the Mass developed . At first was thanksgiving (eucharist) with the leader/president of service may have prayed the commemoration/thanksgiving over the elements. to finally requiring a priest to consecrate and ringing bells and a sacrifice we offer to God, not just" thanksgiving". Some have said leave your teeth and belies behind, for Peter “ate” with his confession of faith.

 

[pocohombre]

So…those who disagree with your interpretation then…would you say they are without Him

No. Again, not either or but I would say if we are wrong on something, and we all are (none are perfect in all understanding), it is because we are not totally like Him yet . But thanks be to God we are getting there and to a degree, have His mind, and His rightness about many things.

And following what you said…who among the thousand interpretations out there…who would you say truly professes Him?

No,there are usually just a handful of interpretations by professing folks .This has been our history since from the beginning. The Godhead -is it two or three, was he man or flesh, created or creator. Is it" con" or “trans” or one or two more substantiations. Is it by immersion, or pouring ? Do we baptize once or can you rebaptize ? Was Mary’s grace from conception or just after birth ?Was she assumed before death, just after or not at all ? Were Jesus’s “brethren” half brothers, cousins ? These are just some of the things that have been debated within the church, that eventually decided upon in unity or decided upon to separate ways. I would not say there are thousands views on any one issue .