B
benhur
Guest
when Peter answered the Lord, “who do you say that I am”. Divine revelation on the matter went against Peter’s “magisterium”.
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Sorry Pete ,strike two on me.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes "human nature’’, and was it divine or “human nature” to choose prestigious and royal Rome ? Bit of both ?Hi Ben.
I think everything has a HQ. Even in our homes there’s one particular area that we spend most of our time in. Human nature.
And I’ve never been to the Vatican but I’ve heard that they barely make ends meet.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Who is Peter’s Magisterium?
I think some things need to be understood here. First, the Lord Jesus, when on earth, superceded all members of the Sanhedrin. He was God, establishing the New Covenant and issuing the Day of the Messiah. Secondly, the Sanhedrin did not act according to the Law when judging Jesus. There were many things that went against the Law in their procedings.
Also, the Sanhedrin was still not without divine influence. Gamaliel provided Wisdom to the Counsel in Acts 5. They were not without Divine guidance. Yet, they were unlawful and did not accept their own Lord.
When Jesus appeared, He was the Magisterium. Even the Pharisees knew this. They asked Him, as master, “what should we do?”. Yes, they approached Him to test Him, but they would never call a false Teacher, master.
When Jesus asked His Apostles, “But who do you say that I am?” He was holding the first Magisterial counsel of the New Covenant. He brought a matter to the court. He brought to attention who “men” say that Jesus was/is, then He asked the counsel who they say Jesus is. He knew the Father would guide the Chief Apostle and so affirm/Confirm/strengthen the others. The answer was not from man (flesh and blood) but from Divine Sovereignty.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I wasn’t thinking of the gifts of the Spirit. I mean that for some people, they seem to claim that God illuminates them so they know what God’s truths are. Kind of a private revelation to them. Mormons use the “burning in the bosom,” as an illumination from God that Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. Victor Wierwill’s Twig fellowship uses that device as well which prospective inductees receive from God to show to them that the Twig is where they should go. I inferred that you have received something similar so that you know your position is right.
But if the Holy Spirit is truly behind all these different illuminations, He certainly points different people to so many different directions! From Mormons, to Twig, to other various groups. Not in equal directions.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Well since Peter was the one singled out and given keys and told to feed the sheep, the “HQ” was going to be where ever he journeyed to. So a bit of both.
And Romans were using Christians as human lanterns and feeding them to the lions for entertainment purposes. It was not so glamorous in the early church. This would be similar to attempting to establish Christianity in Saudi Arabia… Very difficult and very necessary as the gospel must be preached everywhere, regardless of consequence.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
How did Rome become the center for the church? If there were to be a center, one would intuitively think it would be the Jerusalem church. It, after all, was the beginning, the mother church, where it all started. But Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and any Christians remaining there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. Subsequent Christianity in Jerusalem was re-established from outside, and hence not in continuity with the original church there. It is reported the Jerusalem Christians escaped across the Jordan but were very Jewish and became the Ebionites, the Judaizers as Paul called them. Christianity after that was thoroughly Pauline.
Some scholars believe Paul’s first congregations were charismatic, with no leaders, simply depending upon the gifts of the Spirit to keep them in line. But, as we know from Paul’s letters, this didn’t work. The situations became chaotic. He had to go back and have elders appointed retroactively. From the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, we know the bishop/elder system was firmly established by the end of the first century.
Which is fortunate, because without a strong leadership, wouldn’t the nascent Christian movement have just become one of the other mystery cults in the Roman empire and disappeared into obscurity?
But the bishop/patriarch system prevented that. And kept the congregations from straying from apostolic teaching. Is this by divine approval or guidance?
However, as we saw, individual congregations could stray, and so could bishops, witness Arius. God obviously was not guiding individual bishops either. As a practical matter then, an ultimate authority in some way must be the arbiter of faith and morals. Church councils of bishops, with the Jerusalem council as model, became the arbiter, the ultimate decider of disputes.
To begin with, Christianity did have a center from which it spread, Jerusalem. But, being destroyed, Jerusalem couldn’t remain the center, so a new center arose, Rome, where Peter was martyred. Peter was the main apostle, the leader or center of the apostles, and thereby Rome established primacy. Rome was of course also the capital of the empire.
Was this by divine approval and guidance? Or was Rome just a big bully? In any event, it sure helped in the cohesiveness and spread of Christianity, especially in western Europe.
Jesus was humble (not all the time), but to spread the faith, you can’t be just humble, you have to be bold and decisive, like Jesus. Rome provides that. Is this the divine way, the New Jerusalem, or human hubris?
C
commenter
Guest
Thank you for the compliment! I have never found that the whole “body” - the totality of Catholics - to be reliable in judging illumination. To a large extent our opinions are shaped by the secular culture.
I now as an old man realize some of my flashes of “insight” in the past to be passing fancy, result of peer pressure, or what was on the News last night. That’s why I believe God left a trustworthy agent - the Magisterium - to screen illuminations in light of Scripture and Tradition. The Gospel of Mary was “unapproved” as Public Revelation by the Magisterium. Even if 99% of Catholics someday regard it as inspired, I won’t.
If Protestants can and do accept one kind of “formal, central, judging” - i. e. a single New Testament - they may eventually see the value of the other formal, central judging - the single teacher for that one canon. The Magisterium does not answer all my questions. But the Bible doesn’t either. My assurance is that the answers that do come from the formal, central screening are reliable.
Y
YADA
Guest
Rome represented the world … Jesus came not to merely save God’s Chosen people [Jews] but all people [Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles] … Jesus commanded to go to the four corners of the earth - to all nations …
That is why the apostles including Peter went to preach the Gospel and why Rome was important. Not for their glory or gain - Rome was a hostile place - especially for Christians. They went for Jesus - for the Glory of God and the Good News of redemption through Jesus
B
benhur
Guest
hI RC,
THANKS FOR RESPONDING .I CAN ONLY SAY THE GOSPEL STORY DID NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM , THAT IS OF ONLY NT ASPECTS, LEAVING OUT OT/PRESENT REALITY OF THE JEWISH POWERS TO BE. I MEAN CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED, PETER AND OTHERS WERE IMPRISONED BY THOSE POWERS YOU PUT OUTSIDE THE STORY OF “WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM ?”.
Sorry about the caps. Was not screaming. Did not know had caps on and did not want to retype all.
Peter and the apostles did not know precisely that they were in NT times. They did perceive Christ in terms of OT prophecy and present OT backdrop. They were all Jews, living at the edge or end of OT. The Sanhedrin and rabbis and high priests were not dethroned yet. Not sure they were being "unlawful’ for indeed they were to judge any “prpophet”(yes they were unlawful during trial but they lacked faith /illumination , and way before any trial)…Their opinion of Jesus as not unlawful. It is their opinion (of who Jesus was ),which was their right and duty before the Jewish nation, that Peter was aware of and had to finally disagree with, or go against , due to divine illumination, that over rode the error of the status quo leaders.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Yes thank you Yada, They went to many cities, even prominent cities (all hostile). The church did spread , but why did church headquarter there, and why did a world wide church usually have a leader that came from such a small geographic area (Rome/Italy), according to CC history ?
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Again thank you for your post .
Do you think a magisterium opinion can also be shaped by secular culture ? It certainly happens in some P mainstream churches, and independents.
Blessings
C
commenter
Guest
Protestants don’t claim to have anything much like a “Magisterium”.
Consider the definition of the Assumption in 1950. In 1950, the secular culture had no demand, no interest at all in Mary, let alone the conditions of how she ended her time on Earth. The definition at that time did nothing to make Catholicism more popular, acceptable, or relevant to the culture of 1950. If anything it was the opposite of 1950-relevant, not remotely related to the top 100 issues of interest then.
But were there times when the Magisterium failed to teach because of the secular culture? Probably. Maybe some pope was afraid of saying something unpopular; or another pope was distracted by the Arts, or by wine, or by desire for applause. There were times when popes were “shaped” into silence by the “secular culture” of roving mobs in Rome, so much so they escaped to France. Maybe there they were silent, because shaped by a culture of comfort and safety.
There’s no assurance that the Magisterium will always speak the truth. Silence is an option. But when it does speak on faith and morals, that is reliably the truth.
D
dawid
Guest
Hi benhur
However during the discourse on the road to Emmaus and the supper, Jesus revealed the context to them - And they said to one another, Were not our hearts burning within us when he spoke to us on the road, and when he made the scriptures plain to us? (Lk 24:13-35).
They appear to have then only realised the context of the Lamb’s Supper as the New Covenant.
There at his Last Supper with them: “He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you!’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.’” (Lk. 22:19-20)
At Pentecost they received the holy Spirit and in full confidence started the propagation of the Gospels of our Lord.
The Acts of the Apostles and the various Epistles appears to support the validity of the claim to their faith in the New Covenant.
Regards
d
From the Gospels we can see that the apostles were initially unsure of themselves.
However during the discourse on the road to Emmaus and the supper, Jesus revealed the context to them - And they said to one another, Were not our hearts burning within us when he spoke to us on the road, and when he made the scriptures plain to us? (Lk 24:13-35).
They appear to have then only realised the context of the Lamb’s Supper as the New Covenant.
There at his Last Supper with them: “He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which will be given for you!’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.’” (Lk. 22:19-20)
At Pentecost they received the holy Spirit and in full confidence started the propagation of the Gospels of our Lord.
The Acts of the Apostles and the various Epistles appears to support the validity of the claim to their faith in the New Covenant.
Regards
d
P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright. I’m not sure you said anything there that we would disagree with.
D
dawid
Guest
Hi benhur
Scripture and the writings of the early Church fathers support this.
The Church had spread considerably by the end of the first century. This is reflected in the term Ekklesia katilikos (Church Universal) in the letter of Ignatius the bishop of Antioch (107 AD).
If we doubt the extent of the spread, consider the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankar rites (in India) that were established by the apostle Thomas before he died. That’s a lot of walking! Those rites are still in communion with the bishop of Rome. I have a Syro-Malabar family as part of my Latin-rite parish.
Regards
d
The authority vested in Peter and his successors has its seat with the See of Rome.
Scripture and the writings of the early Church fathers support this.
The Church had spread considerably by the end of the first century. This is reflected in the term Ekklesia katilikos (Church Universal) in the letter of Ignatius the bishop of Antioch (107 AD).
If we doubt the extent of the spread, consider the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankar rites (in India) that were established by the apostle Thomas before he died. That’s a lot of walking! Those rites are still in communion with the bishop of Rome. I have a Syro-Malabar family as part of my Latin-rite parish.
Regards
d
D
dawid
Guest
Hi benhur
The advice was tainted by secular culture and therefore rejected.
See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae
Regards
d
The encyclical Humanae vitae is an example of the pope rejection of the advice given.
The advice was tainted by secular culture and therefore rejected.
See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae
Regards
d
R
rcwitness
Guest
And thank you. I know these debates can seem endless, but i dont believe they are without good ground gained for both of us.
Yes, I do believe when Peter answer, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The Sanhedrin became subject to Jesus (to the Apostles). However, it was not “crossed” over, fully, until Pentecost.
Maybe this is where we disagree. Mary believed the message of the angel, and that the Messiah would be fulfilled through her. She, then, opened the door with faith to initiate the first miracle. The disciples believed after this. Some of the disciples came from John, who received many expecting the Messiah. And he bore witness to some:
John 1
*The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples;*and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus… One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.41He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ).
Obviously, I agree that they did not understand the reality of the mission of the Messiah. But from early on, they believed to a strong degree. And many who who came to Jesus with great faith did as well. They repented before Him and believed Him when He said their sins were forgiven. That in itself was a radical belief, and could only mean God was with Jesus in a profound Messianic way.
The opinion of the Sanhedrin was mixed.
John 9
The Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”*Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was a division among them.*So they again said to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”
John 3
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.*This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.”
My point, is that if the Sanhedrin would have held a legal (lawful) court about Jesus, their opinions would not matter, because they would not have been able to prosecute Him and hand Him over to Pilot. The members were divided, though it’s probably safe to say the majority did not believe. There were Pharisees who believed and eventually became Baptized Christians. Some of them, like Nicodemus, were in the Sanhedrin.
Jesus Himself gave command to obey the Jewish rulers. It was not until the complete change of Magistrate (Sanhedrin to 12 Apostles) did this bind on God’s people.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Here is a good article explaining the tial of Jesus, and how it was not legal.
rcg.org/pillar/0902pp-trjtwi.html
rcg.org/pillar/0902pp-trjtwi.html
C
commenter
Guest
Good example.
It should be emphasized that “secular culture” includes the opinions of Catholics influenced by secularism. Catholics can be influenced by “The World” (and by The Flesh and The Devil). Whenever the media wants to attack Catholic teaching, they quote from Father this, or Sister that, or Jane Doe, a “devout” Catholic wife and mother who cannon accept the Magisterium’s teaching. The Magisterium is attacked as “non-responsive” to the opinions of most Catholics.
To me that’s like attacking a firewall because it fails to allow certain things into your computer. The Magisterium is supposed to be “responsive” to my need for truth (towards salvation) not “responsive” to my opinions (after I saturated myself with CNN, FoxNews, etc).
It’s likely the Magisterium cost the Church many members when it rejected some popular works, like the gnostic scriptures, from the New Testament. It was likely attacked as “unresponsive” or non inclusive.
Like today.
- Status