Thank you Peter J. I came across a website on the African Orthodox Church. They believe they have the Ark of the Covenant. All this fascinates me. I love history, that is why I see Revelation a Catholic book with most, not all, being fulfilled in the first century.I can see different points a view, I understand now were Spirit Meadow and the Orthodox Churches are coming from, but it has no effect on my faith one way or the other.
You’re very welcome.
Although I’m not too sure how my Orthodox friends would feel about the phrase “where SpiritMeadow and the Orthodox Churches are coming from” (see post #32 and the quotation therein).**I was going off post#31 where it is said some Orthodox believe like protestants on the keys not given to just Peter, but all the Apostles. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other, I’m finding myself drawn towards the Catholic Church. I think Spirit brings in good points though. I can see where her faith is coming from, I guess that’s my point.A lot of this is new to me even though I have a limited education in history. I see the Latin Rite view, but I see the Orthodox view.To be totally honest the Byzantine Church fascinates me the most, but I live in a farm area and there isn’t one for 200 miles. The closes Catholic Church is 20 miles away. I’m just trying to learn and put my arms around this whole thread.:tiphat: **You’re very welcome.
Gabriel of 12;I can see were the Latin right believes this, although I see in this post not all of the Eastern rite except Peter as head Apostle, I’m coming to understand their point of view, that all Apostles were equal. I further have come to understand that the Eastern rite still falls under the Primacy of Peter, the Church is One. Correct? With that being said are there not other Churches that may come into the Primacy of Peter? Is it that important then we debate whether Peter is first Pope, if Churches won’t to be in one accord with the teachings of all the Apostles?
I don’t have a problem with that. Indeed, there’s something of a consensus among Catholics that any Pope who falls into heresy thereby ceases to be Pope.
Hi John VIII, I’m trying to understand your post. I take it that you believe Peter was the only Pope until the Apostles joined him and there were no other Popes in Church history? When were the other Apostles in Rome? Was not Paul also an Apostle and did he not go to Rome first before Peter arrived?Last question, would that not make Paul the first and only Pope under this logic?
**Thankyou for the info Gabriel of 12.
I was reflecting on the OP and the website he gave. I have read [the website and it’s claim of Matt. 16:18 the Greek word used “built upon” and it being again in Eph.2:20. I understand the debate of the Greek Petro and Petra for Rock vs Kepha in Aramaic.My questios are these:
All this translating can be confusing if you don’t speak Aramaic,Greek,and Latin.
- What is the Aramaic translation for 'Built upon"?
- Eph2:20 suggest the Curch “built upon” Apostles and Prophets teachings, Jesus being the Corner or Cap Stone. What is the Aramaic translation for “Cap stone” ?
- Is John VIII saying the Orthodox Church does not recognize the Latin succession of Popes?
Peace ****
Below are two translations from Aramaic to English, for Matthew 16:18.
**(Etheridge) Also I say unto thee, that thou art Kipha, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of Sheul shall not prevail against her.
(Murdock) Also I say to thee, that thou art Cephas: and upon this rock, I will build my church: and the gates of death shall not triumph over it.**
Below are the two Aramaic to English translations for Ephesians 2:20.
**(Etheridge) and you are builded upon the foundation of the apostles and of the prophets, and Jeshu the Meshiha himself is the chief corner of the building;
(Murdock) And ye are built upon the foundations of the legates and the prophets; and Jesus the Messiah hath become the head of the corner in the edifice.**
I think John VIII has a mistaken idea of Catholic teaching. Specifically, he thinks that by “pope” we mean “universal bishop” (hence his statement that St. Peter was “pope”, i.e. universal bishop, only until Christ granted authority to the rest of the apostles as well).Hi John VIII, I’m trying to understand your post. I take it that you believe Peter was the only Pope until the Apostles joined him and there were no other Popes in Church history? When were the other Apostles in Rome? Was not Paul also an Apostle and did he not go to Rome first before Peter arrived?Last question, would that not make Paul the first and only Pope under this logic?
Peace be with you
I don’t see why you are trying to create something here Peter. I didn’t carry my “history” forward to the split with the EO, since it was unnecessary to make my point. You continue for whatever reason to try to turn this issue to ecumenism and liberalism for some reason that is unknown to me.You’re very welcome.
The Eastern Orthodox position, in a nutshell, is that the RCC was formed by breaking away from the one true Church (i.e. the Orthodox Church). This is clearly incompatible with what you said …
which is why I criticized Racing for saying “… where SpiritMeadow and the Orthodox Churches are coming from”.
I never said you owed him a apology. It seems you read a lot of “stuff” into what is actually written. I see you point as to what you are saying about my statement and true EO. I don’t know why you feel badgered. You seem to be only happy with me when I agree with you, an then get snarky when I don’t. Sorry to make you uncomfortable.
Gabriel of 12;
**Thankyou for the info Gabriel of 12.
I was reflecting on the OP and the website he gave. I have read [the website and it’s claim of Matt. 16:18 the Greek word used “built upon” and it being again in Eph.2:20. I understand the debate of the Greek Petro and Petra for Rock vs Kepha in Aramaic.My questios are these:
All this translating can be confusing if you don’t speak Aramaic,Greek,and Latin.
- What is the Aramaic translation for 'Built upon"?
- Eph2:20 suggest the Curch “built upon” Apostles and Prophets teachings, Jesus being the Corner or Cap Stone. What is the Aramaic translation for “Cap stone” ?
- Is John VIII saying the Orthodox Church does not recognize the Latin succession of Popes?
Peace ****
Gabriel of 12;
See post #49 from Prodigal Son1 above for translation. Jesus in the “corner stone rejected by the builders” Jesus is the foundation of which he builds his Church upon Peter. Remember, the Catholic church is the Mystical “Body” of Jesus Christ, not a building or a select few. Grasping this mystery of Johns, and Pauls theology of the Church being the body of Jesus Christ makes hard to understand scripture easy from this context. Such as the apostles having 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
I cant answer John VIII opinions for him, may God bless him. But “some” Eastern Orthodox" Catholic Church’s in schism with Peter’s successors in the Popes not all Eastern Orthodox Catholic Rites. Both secular history and Religious history well documents all the Popes in unbroken succession since Peter to present day successor Pope Benedict XVI. I believe these in schism begin to recognize the successors of Peter ended with St. Clement, others may have the succession ending later, what is interesting, this refusal of recognizing the successors of Peter in the Popes does not surface until 1054 a.d. Besides we have an Eastern Saint listing the first 12 Popes from Peter.
I agree with you, it can become quite confusing when trying to decipher different language biblical interpretations. But most, if not all biblical theologians follow St. Jeromes biblical interpretations from Hebrew, Greek into the “Vulgate” Latin. Did I mention St. Jerome was a Roman Catholic?
In his book “Peter and the Rock,” Webster attempts to prove that Cyprian had no concept of Roman primacy and says that the citations he provides “reveal a consensus of scholarly opinion on Cyprian’s teaching effectively demonstrating the incompatibility of Cyprian’s views with those espoused by Vatican I.” His comments seem to betray an ignorance of scholars who disagree with him. His imagined “consensus” is one built upon selective proof-texting. He quite blithely dismisses a *complete* modern consensus that cuts across Protestant, Catholic, and even secular (as well as conservative and liberal) lines with respect to the identification of Peter and the Rock in Matthew 16:18. Instead, he points to Protestant apologists who often cite modernist Catholic theologians – those who have abandoned the historic teachings of the Church – to try to show that “our own” scholars have rejected our position but then refuse even to acknowledge their own Evangelical Protestant scholars who disagree with their position. This amounts to a huge double standard that needs to be exposed for what it is. Scholars who do not fit Webster’s consensus include B.C. Butler, John Chapman, E. Giles, A.H. Cullen, William, Barry, and Warren Carroll, to mention only a few.
Webster’s section on St. Cyprian also demonstrates his unwillingness to represent fairly the process and necessity of doctrinal development within the Church. As we have demonstrated earlier in this book: the oak tree has grown and looks perceptibly different from the fragile sprout that cracked the original acorn, yet the organic essence and identity remain the same. Do the words of the very first Christians contain the full-blown understanding of the Papacy as expressed in Vatican I? No, they do not, as Webster correctly observes. But then, neither do the words of the first Christians present the fully developed understanding of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ (or the canon of the New Testament, for that matter) as expounded and practiced by later generations of the Church. One must be careful not to read too much into the early centuries – but one must also be careful not to ignore the obvious doctrinal substance contained and practiced by our forbears, which was simply developed and implemented as the need arose throughout subsequent centuries.No. I said, “according to St. Firmilian even the Bishop of Rome can leave this unity”. I did not say that the Bishop of Rome did leave this unity. (At least not until the reign of Pope Marinus I, that is.)
The key to understanding what I had said is how I defined the word “Pope”. What I meant was the idea of an “Universal Bishop”. What I was trying to say is that all bishops must be equal, so the only time that there could be a universal bishop was when there was only one bishop, and the only time in history that I know that to have occurred was when St. Peter became the first. I don’t mean the first one in Rome, I mean the first apostle.Hi John VIII, I’m trying to understand your post. I take it that you believe Peter was the only Pope until the Apostles joined him and there were no other Popes in Church history? When were the other Apostles in Rome? Was not Paul also an Apostle and did he not go to Rome first before Peter arrived?Last question, would that not make Paul the first and only Pope under this logic?
Peace be with you