- Status
B
bmullins
Guest
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
But if the horse is thirsty, he will drink the water. You would not have to force him to do that.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Some very well may, but I doubt it is the teaching of the Church. I have read the Bible, Genesis to Revelation, 46 Old Testament books, 27 New Testament books. I am currently reading through it again. I always find there’s something I missed. It is really difficult to interpret the passages and prophecies of the New Testament without knowing the old. There are some people, that believe Jesus is speaking metaphorically (I read something like only 57% of adult American Catholics believe in the real presence), in John 6 read the text, and you’ll see how this is a logical impossibility. I have read the New Testament in its entirety twice, and the Torah three times. I am reading the Bible all the way through, at least one chapter a day (most of the time), and I am currently in the Psalms. Catholics take the Bible as a whole.
A
Abu
Guest
In Christ’s Catholic Church this is the reality.
‘Evodius
The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter. Eusebius mentions him thus in his “History”: “And Evodius having been established the first [bishop] of the Antiochians, Ignatius flourished at this time” (III, 22). The time referred to is that of Clement of Rome and Trajan, of whom Eusebius has just spoken.
‘The difficulty which thus arose about Evodius was solved in the Apostolic Constitutions by stating that Evodius was ordained by Peter and Ignatius by Paul. The Byzantine chronographer, John Malalas (X, 252), relates that as Peter went to Rome, and passed through the great city of Antioch, it happened that Evodus (sic), the bishop and patriarch, died, and Ignatius succeeded him, he attributes to Evodius the invention of the name Christian.’
newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t think that is a correct translation of what St. Irenaeus actually wrote. For example, if I am referring to the same document, you appear to be translating convenire ad by the words, to agree with, which is not correct as seen by comparison with a few Greek texts of St. Irenaeus:
Greek Text: καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβληκότες.
Although the latin translation involves convenerunt it does not mean agree with, but it means bear witness to it. And similarly with a second Greek verse:
“Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ.”
In general, it is better to translate the convenire of St. Irenæus in the sense of to go, and not to agree with.
So, if you would kindly give us the document that you are referring to, we can check to see if my interpretation of the translation is correct or not.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There are a lot of them. For example, is it good to aquire wisdom or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
A
Abu
Guest
See: Catholic Apologetics Online
Questions and answers on Catholicism and Protestantism
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=42&n=374
Further, ‘The “Chronicle of Eusebius” is lost; but in Jerome’s translation of it we find in three successive years the three entries
•that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years;
•that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria; and
•that Evodius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.
‘The year of the accession of Ignatius, that is of the death of Evodius, was unknown to Eusebius, for he merely places it in the “Chronicle” together with the death of Peter and the accession of Linus at Rome (Nero 14-68), while in the “History” he mentions it at the beginning of Trajan’s reign.’
We may be sure that Evodius is an historical personage, and really the predecessor of St. Ignatius.
newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm
‘Professor C. A. Briggs, a Presbyterian, in his book on “Church Unity,” p. 205, writes, “I cannot undertake to give even a sketch of the history of the Papacy. We shall have to admit that the Christian Church from the earliest times recognized the primacy of the Roman Bishop, and that all other great Sees at times recognized the supreme jurisdiction of Rome in matters of doctrine, government, and discipline. . . . When the whole case has been carefully examined and all the evidence sifted, the statement of Irenaeus stands firm: We put to confusion all unauthorized assemblies by indicating the tradition derived from the Apostles of the great, ancient, and universally known Church founded at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul . . . for it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre-eminent authority.” St. Irenaeus wrote that in the second century; and you can be quite sure that the Presbyterian Dr. Briggs would not make the admission he has made in this paragraph unless compelled by the evidence to do so.’ [My emphasis].
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Irenaeus&db=2
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t doubt that St. Irenaeus wrote something like that. But St. Irenaeus wrote in Greek. And that was translated into latin. And from there, it was translated into english. I have shown above that when that translation to convenire is made from Greek to latin in another one of his passages, the words convenire ad do not mean agree with. If you think I am wrong, please give us the exact words of St. Irenaeus in greek or the translated words in latin. My references do not agree with your english translation of the words of St. Irenaeus. I believe you have a mistranslation, which we can easily check if you would give me the exact words that were written by St. Irenaeus. Even the latin translation would be helpful, since I can show you the translation error.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course, this is recorded in the book of Acts. The line of Bishops from Peter in Antioch is older than the one in Rome, but the Petrine gifts and responsibilities were passed to his successor in Rome.
A
Abu
Guest
Tomdstone seems quite unable to assent to Christ’s establishment of His Church on St Peter, Her Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium, which every real Catholic does.
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S. J. sums up the reality:
PETER. The first Pope and leader of the Apostles. His original name was Simon, but Jesus gave him the name “Peter,” which is Greek, or “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic equivalent. “Peter” and “Cephas” mean “the rock” (John 1:42). Such a name was appropriate to the strong character of the man, but the name became a supremely significant metaphor when Christ later made the dramatic assignment. “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18). What made the name distinctive as well was that neither “Peter” nor “Cephas” was ever used as a man’s name. It was a career designation. There could be no question about the recognition of Peter’s leadership. His name always appeared first in the listing of the Apostles (Mark 3:16). He and his brother were the first chosen. His name appears in the Gospels oftener than that of any other Apostle (Luke 5:10). He acted as their spokesman and whenever Jesus questioned them Peter responded in their behalf. He was present at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8). He was with Jesus when he raised Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:51). He was in Gethsemane during the Lord’s agony (Mark 14:33). Jesus paid the temple tax for himself and Peter (Matthew 17:24-27). When Jesus disappeared from Capernaum, it was Peter who led the disciples in pursuit (Mark 1:36). It was Peter who objected to the washing of the feet (John 13:6-9). The angel in announcing the Resurrection said, “Go and tell the disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). Other instances from all four Gospels could be cited that make it clear that Peter’s leadership was uncontested. After the Crucifixion it was Peter who directed the meeting to select a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-26). When Paul and Barnabas attended the first council in Jerusalem, Peter presided and made the speech that silenced discussion (Acts 15:6-12). Through the early chapters of Acts he continues to exercise the leadership role. He was truly obeying the Master’s valedictory injunction to “feed my lambs” and feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17). Peter revealed human shortcomings as well as strengths. He was rebuked by Jesus for misinterpreting the Messianic mission (Mark 8:33). His impetuosity was revealed in the garden when he attacked Malchus (John 18:10). He was bitterly ashamed of the cowardice he revealed in denying Jesus in the courtyard (Luke 22:54-62). **But none of these human actions reduce the significance of the assignment he received when Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). **(Etym. Greek petros, masc. name formed from the fem. noun petra, rock.) [My emphasis].
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Real Catholics don’t cherry pick – they assent and endeavour to follow Christ through His Church.
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S. J. sums up the reality:
PETER. The first Pope and leader of the Apostles. His original name was Simon, but Jesus gave him the name “Peter,” which is Greek, or “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic equivalent. “Peter” and “Cephas” mean “the rock” (John 1:42). Such a name was appropriate to the strong character of the man, but the name became a supremely significant metaphor when Christ later made the dramatic assignment. “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18). What made the name distinctive as well was that neither “Peter” nor “Cephas” was ever used as a man’s name. It was a career designation. There could be no question about the recognition of Peter’s leadership. His name always appeared first in the listing of the Apostles (Mark 3:16). He and his brother were the first chosen. His name appears in the Gospels oftener than that of any other Apostle (Luke 5:10). He acted as their spokesman and whenever Jesus questioned them Peter responded in their behalf. He was present at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8). He was with Jesus when he raised Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:51). He was in Gethsemane during the Lord’s agony (Mark 14:33). Jesus paid the temple tax for himself and Peter (Matthew 17:24-27). When Jesus disappeared from Capernaum, it was Peter who led the disciples in pursuit (Mark 1:36). It was Peter who objected to the washing of the feet (John 13:6-9). The angel in announcing the Resurrection said, “Go and tell the disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). Other instances from all four Gospels could be cited that make it clear that Peter’s leadership was uncontested. After the Crucifixion it was Peter who directed the meeting to select a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-26). When Paul and Barnabas attended the first council in Jerusalem, Peter presided and made the speech that silenced discussion (Acts 15:6-12). Through the early chapters of Acts he continues to exercise the leadership role. He was truly obeying the Master’s valedictory injunction to “feed my lambs” and feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17). Peter revealed human shortcomings as well as strengths. He was rebuked by Jesus for misinterpreting the Messianic mission (Mark 8:33). His impetuosity was revealed in the garden when he attacked Malchus (John 18:10). He was bitterly ashamed of the cowardice he revealed in denying Jesus in the courtyard (Luke 22:54-62). **But none of these human actions reduce the significance of the assignment he received when Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). **(Etym. Greek petros, masc. name formed from the fem. noun petra, rock.) [My emphasis].
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Real Catholics don’t cherry pick – they assent and endeavour to follow Christ through His Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
"…omnem convenire Ecclesiam Ecclesiae propter eminentiam potestatis , id est ubique , quod ab apostolica traditio semper servata fidelium ] qui sunt ubique…
…λόγω της άψογης της εξουσίας της Εκκλησίας , όλη την Εκκλησία , δηλαδή , παντού , η αποστολική παράδοση ήταν πάντα κράτησε ο οι πιστοί ] που υπάρχουν παντού…
When interpreting ancient documents, it is useful to consider how the text was understood by those who penned it, and those to whom it was addressed. Regardless of how convenire may have been translated or understood in another document, the understanding of this one is not only clear from the immediate context, but the remote context as well. This is how the meaning was understood up until the Great Schism.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is your source for this. My source says convenire ad.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is from the Verbum collection.
Can you explain why that makes a difference for you? Are you really basing your understanding of what the passage is saying on the two little letters? Is that more important than the historical and theological context of the passage?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I think that a correct translation is important.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is, but you did not answer my questions.
- Status