C
catharina
Guest
Ron - you’re mistaken.
You can’t expect to explain the Catholic Faith and Scripture to a Catholic.
It simply doesn’t fly and it won’t fly.
- Status
You can’t expect to explain the Catholic Faith and Scripture to a Catholic.
It simply doesn’t fly and it won’t fly.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
S
seamusmohr
Guest
Perhaps you could explain please, just how Peter’s Primacy extends to the Bishop of Rome? I have read Scripture and Holy Tradition but have never been able to marry the two!
Seamusmohr!
S
Saint_Dismas
Guest
The Scriptures in Matthew say that Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. Where Peter is then there is Christs Church. Peter was martyred in Rome and buried there and so His Bishopric and seat was established there. The Church in Rome is literally built on the bones of St. Peter and so it fulfills the scriptures in Matthew of the NT both symbolically and literally. This is why the Bishops of Rome are recognized as Vicars of Christ because Peter was the first Pope and all who took His office after He died would also be Pope.
There is evidence that the early Christians saw the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ in a letter from St. Clement (who was the third successor of Saint Peter) to the Corinthians! Yes the same Corinthians Paul writes to in His Epistle!
About the year 95AD St Clement Bishop of the See of Rome found it necessary to write to the Catholics of Corinth regarding and issue with some Bishops that were expelled by some of the Corithians. Now throughout Clements letter he uses a tone of authority which is pretty clear:
“If any man,” says St. Clement, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger…Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit” (Ep 59:70). Now the following facts should be considered in regard to this Epistle of Clement:
- Reference is made to “the good Apostles” Peter and Paul, those pillars of the Church martyrs, who gave such good examples to the Romans.
- The whole Epistle is a implicit manifestation of Romes consciousness of possession of the Primacy in the Church, for A) instead of offering excuses for interfering in the affairs of the Corinthian Church, Clement begins by apologizing for his delay in writing. Unless it was his duty to write, there would be no reason for apologizing. B) Clement threatens, as we have quoted above, and demands obedience!
- St John the Apostle was actually alive at Ephesus at the time. If the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which was far less accessible than Ephesus, it proves that they recognized the authority of Clement over even an Apostle; if Clements action were spontaneous, it shows that the Church at Rome was already conscious of a superior and exceptional authority.
- The letter was WELCOMED by the Catholics of Corinth, which proves that they did not think that Rome had interfered unlawfully or exceeded her power. In fact, the Corinthians put this Epistle of St. Clement on almost the same level as the Scriptures, and for a century it was read in the Churches.
“The Roman Community’s sense of its own importance is nevertheless unmistakable, and it finds expression in the whole tenor of the letter. Rome imparts profitable instruction to the Corinthian community and regards this as her right and duty: but one gets the impression that the Romans would have been greatly surprised had Corinth, let us say, in similar circumstances dispatched such a letter of admonition to Rome” (XII, 530)
–This is the Faith pg 165- 166
So as we can see when Peter died there is where his Chair was seated and the letter of Clement to the Corinthians shows that this was accepted and recognized by the Early Christians as it is today as the Head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ the Pope.
God Bless
L
larkin31
Guest
One can inform a believer of another denomination or faith of one’s Catholic beliefs, but to expect to persuade the other person to drop their faith and adhere to Catholicism from simply an internet conversation is perhaps misguided.
C
cruisin
Guest
Kathleen,
first of all My question/comment was posted to RonTheNewJew.
second it had nothing to do with the ten commandments and the golden calf. you are deflecting again and not adress the point made by RonTheNewJew.
If what he says is true then that sheds some interesting light on why Jesus said what he said.
If the teacher could only read from the Law of Moses while on the Seat then it was in essence listening to God thru the words written by Moses or God speaking on the Seat. no additions, no Tradions explained, no examination, No comparisons between the law and Tradition, the Teacher read and the listener listened to the word of God.
The questions I have would be
What where the rules reguarding the seat of Moses?
How was it different when the Teacher taught when not sitting on the seat of Moses?
what does this comparison of the Teachers in Mathew 23 actually teach us?
In both situations they where still the Teachers of the Law, But why the comparison and how would the Jews standing there understand what jesus meant, with the comparison?
Which was more important to Jesus, listening to the Teachers when not seated on the Seat of Moses or when they where?
If when Seated on the Seat of Moses and they where only allowd to read form the Law of Moses, Was Jesus saying to them listen to God before listening to men? be careful and and compare what you are being told and follow the commands of God and not the example of men?
These are only a few I have…
C
catharina
Guest
Actually, larkin, I believe there is much truth in what you’re saying
The grace of conversion and the gift of Faith are given by God.
Ron’s ideas presented here would never sway me or any faithful Catholic.
Catholics have the treasure of the gift of Faith and are quite unlikely to discard it.
P
pinay
Guest
Greetings catharina. I admire your spirit. In truth, I’m quaking in my flipflops in posting this as I’m not sure I can state this in a way that you won’t find contentious.
My understanding of this forum is that we are here to discuss and opine and share. I don’t think anybody expects to convert anybody here. Besides, it is not “us” who converts. It is the Holy Spirit and no-one else, like you said. We can be vehicles, sure. But anybody converting because “someone said x” has questionable intent.
So, when RontheNewJew states his understanding of scripture it is but what he believes. He can present and counter and debate but at the end of the day, it is all but his passion from his own understanding, which, from the tone of his post came about from diligent study. And for that he, at least, is one step closer to God. He is our brother. I do not believe we should just dismiss him for his beliefs.
Peace.
C
catharina
Guest
Nothing contentious about your post, IMO.
I simply disagree with Ron and gg about their point of view.
There is nothing that a non-Catholic can teach me re the Catholic faith.
There are too many twists, turns and departures in their
historically misguided conclusions.
So if/when they say one thing, I feel quite free (and obligated!) to disagree with them.
P
pinay
Guest
Ah, I see your point now. And yes, you are right. Thanks for clarifying!
I
Ismael
Guest
I sure hope so! I think that especially the Greek Orthodox are moving close to us…
S
seamusmohr
Guest
I thank you for your prompt reply, but where is the proof of all this in scripture? Or indeed Holy Tradition?
They do not mention the Bishop of Rome or the Papacy! I cannot see anything that explains the transfer of Peter’s authority to the Bishop of Rome
Was not Corinth a Roman Colony, were not the Christians at that place Roman Immigrants? Did they not apply to the ," Church at Rome," for help and advice, whilst the church at Rome replied through their Bishop. It was to the Body of Christ they appealed to, not to a single man!
In the reference 59:70 Clement is doing no more than the scriptures tell him, or indeed any bishop or priest to do, both O/T and New. He follows it up with a warning that if they do not listen to the words and strictures then the measure of their folly will fall on them! There’s nothing of the authority of the papacy in this!It is straight pastoral teaching!
But nothing about the petrine Claims and their transfer on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome!
I have never heard any criticism of the Church of Rome for interfering in Corinthian business, in fact I thought the Church at Corinth had invited Rome’s help?
I agree with your comments but what is so remarkable about this? Rome is the capital of the Roman World, and as you rightly said earlier it was founded by two Apostles ! Both martyrs!
According to Gregory the Great, Peter’s Chair was seated in three places, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome whilst the Catholic Church was founded in Jerusalem. It was the Seven Ecumenical Councils, or at east some of them, that gave Rome a primacy of place and honour surely!
Seamusmohr!
S
seamusmohr
Guest
You have yet to explain how and when and indeed if, the Petrine Claims descended on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome! Nowhere is it made clear!
J
josie_L
Guest
The church fathers (sacred Tradition) state that the bishop of Rome was-is the successor of Peter, i.e., he holds his office.
C
catharina
Guest
Your name is really Seamus(!)?
S
seamusmohr
Guest
It is! I have always been called Seamus meaning James. After King James the Third!
S
seamusmohr
Guest
**
Dear lady,
This is what you have yet to prove! I have as far as I can, read the Church Fathers and have yet to find anyone of them that claim that the Bishop of Rome had any other position than that of a Bishop. What he did have was a grant of the Primacy of the West, a primacy of honour and place, but this was given him by the Church through the Seven Ecumenical Councils! It is the Bishops collectively, we are taught, that are the successors of Peter again through the Councils.**
C
catharina
Guest
It would be horribly inconsistent to imagine that Jesus would leave a “leader” unnamed.
In fact He named the leader: Peter. That is the beginning of the Tradition.
Not group vote, not a showing of hands, not random opinion: a single, singular leader.
S
Saint_Dismas
Guest
Exactly! If you take away Peters supremacy as the Leader then you render the scripture verses and personal interactions that are recorded between Christ and Peter as meaningless! Christ gives Peter an authority over the rest, Christ commissions Peter to exercise this Authority, Peter does exercise this authority every where in the Scriptures, and the Early Church Fathers recognized it and submitted to Peter and his successors!
seamusmoh you ignored the fact that the Corinthians went to Clement for instruction and not the Apostle Saint John who was geographically closer to them! Why would they do this? If there is no visible head why ask for Clements help and not Johns? The actions of the Corinthians support the fact that Peter and his whoever succeded him was to be the Vicar of Christ and where the last voice of Authority! The Pope is where the buck stops and this is why the corinthians went to Clement!
But there are more historical examples which I will post later.
God Bless
S
simspt
Guest
I think this shows how Clement viewed inspiration and authority. He viewed his own writing as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is interesting because it IMO goes against the argument that many Evangelicals make that inspiration was the sole criteria for the canonization process by the Church later on. On top of that its hard to deny a tone of authority Clement uses when he states “But if some be disobedient to the words which have been spoken by him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no little danger but we shall be guiltless of this sin”.59,1-2:70 ACW
There is an authoritative tone that IMO is difficult to account for purely by vigilance and solitude of community for community between Corinth and Rome.
- Status