M
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The sign of Jonah refers to Christ’s death and resurrection on the third day.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Being referred to as “bar Jonah” is simply a reference to Peter’s father, Jonah, or John. I’ve never heard of this passage as referring to Jonah the Prophet.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
You make an excellent point here. The 12 Jewish Patriarchs had their father Jacob, and then the 12 tribes were ruled over by ONE chosen by God the messiah Moses, and then by One King David whom God promised whose kingdom will never end, when David chose his key holder.
This Hebrew history can be reflected in Jesus and Peter. God the Father reveals the sign from heaven for Jesus who chose Simon Bar Jona, when Jesus changes Simons name to Peter in the presence of the twelve, Peter wrestles with God, by not accepting the will of God when the passion of Christ is revealed to Peter by Jesus, just as God changes Israel name to Jacob, who wrestles with God, of whom will produce the twelve sons that become the twelve tribes of Israel, ruled over by One Moses, One Judge, One King.
Yet it is the Judges Supremacy over the twelve tribes who are called the Elohim of God, literally God who judges. Can you imagine if God chose more than one human judge to judge at the same time over the 12 tribes of Israel ? and the chaos it would of caused? Yet God is not a God of chaos but of order.
The Pentarchy is very interesting because it includes the Patriarch of Constantinople, which did not exist for the first five hundred years of Christianity, when the other Apostolic sees are already in existence.
Peace be with you
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Gabriel of 12: How true! It seems to me that the Patriarch of Constantinople whether by design or by the emperor to make him above or at the very least equal to the Bishop of Rome. However it also seems to me a power struggle over who rules the Church and all wanting to have that power that was given to Peter alone. This does not mean that all of the Apostles were not equal but only that one should be the leader not each one. It was to be a unity thing not a power struggle over who rules and who does not.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
It is commonly missed in these discussion regarding the Popes supremacy post Constantinople.
It should be noted, that patriarchs are not a divine office, they are ecclesial and can come and go, and there can be many different patriarchs.
The divine offices are the Apostles and their Apostolic successors in the Bishops united to Peter’s Chair who presides in the bishop of Rome, never a patriarch.
That is not to say a bishop has not occupied the office of a Patriarch.
The dispute over Authority and jurisdiction of Apostolic sees, does not enter Church history until the Roman Emperor sits a Patriarch in Constantinople.
It goes without saying, that there have been some good Patriarchs of Constantinople who recognized the primacy and authority of the Bishops of Rome. But the Supreme jurisdiction of the bishop’s of Rome over the whole Church, although recognized by the Emperors, becomes a jurisdiction of political gain and power from Constantinople, when The Emperor’s begin entrusting Catholic bishops to sit as Patriarchs over his cities, where bishops already possessed jurisdiction over their community Church’s united with the Bishops of Rome.
The secular powers (while the church is at peace with pagan Rome) mixing with the divine office of bishops begins the development of imperial jurisdiction by Patriarchs, when the Patriarch of Constantinople become in direct conflict with the Supremacy and jurisdiction of the bishop’s of Rome.
Many Eastern church leaders and eastern Patriarch’s celebrated this false utopia at peace with Pagan Rome, that Church government begins to develop the Emperors well organized rule as Emperor over local governments. Great Saints refused the office of Patriarch of Constantinople and left into the monastic life, because they agreed with the Bishops of Rome who did not approve the mixing of secular government in Church affairs.
It is here the Popes struggle against pagan Emperors and heretical Emperors using the rich and powerful Patriarchs of Constantinople, who begins to get Emperor approved councils to usurp Authority from Apostolic sees, but never succeeded to usurp the Supremacy of Peter’s Chair the bishops of Rome, and only gain support from other eastern patriarchs to vote that the Patriarch of Constantinople is equal to the Bishop of Rome.
One should ask the question; why did the Patriarch of Constantinople take such an action against Apostolic sees, and vied for the Supremacy of Peter’s Chair in the Bishops of Rome, and when he found he could not usurp the authority from the Bishops of Rome, tried to settle with calling himself equal to the Bishop of Rome and over all other Apostolic sees.
There is much more to add to this, suffice it to know, the Eastern Bishops in unity with bishop of Rome never had a problem with Peter’s supremacy, until Post Constantinople.
The Orthodox follow a different path to solving the schism, because they refuse to let go what their Emperors granted them within their Empires which is new and never follows Apostolic Sacred Tradition as does the authority and supremacy of the Bishops of Rome.
Strip the Church Patriarchs of all Emperor influence just as the Bishops of Rome finally did today, and we return to our Apostolic sacred Tradition of supreme authority and jurisdiction of Peter’s Chair and all bishops united to him as one united to our head in Christ Jesus. Power, economics, rule, government of self rule out of unity with one another between Eastern Patriarchs and those out of unity with the Bishop’s of Rome still haunt the schism today.
It is not truly Church doctrine as the Patriarchs of Constantinople has falsely accused the Popes of heresy in the past , False accusations of heresy in the West is what remains a subject to draw the many to become in conflict with the Bishops of Rome, when these matters can be settled within the Church and already have been settled in Church councils.
Yet the Orthodox would object to viewing this history as it stands, because their disputes do not address these ancient secular issues that vied for or attempted to be equal with the Bishop’s of Rome Supreme Authority and Jurisdiction, when they look to post Constantinople history and the seven councils which stagnates their theology in history that does not address attacks against the Church from the Western secular powers and heresies trying to infect the Church.
When the bishop’s of Rome faced Church enemies many times alone, when the Eastern wealthy and powerful Patriarchs of Constantinople, left the Bishop’s of Rome without support, at the mercy of her pagan and barbaric enemies.
Sorry to be long winded here, but I see these arguments on these boards never addresses the true political history which affected both the Eastern autocephalous Church’s and the Bishops of Rome
Peace be with you Spina1953
R
rinnie
Guest
Jesus said to all of the Apostles I give you the power to bind and loose SIN. Where in the word of God rather written nor oral was it ever quoted that all of the Apostles have the power of the Holy Spirit to have the keys to bind and loose anything except sin?
I have seem to missed this. I would appreciate it if anyone could point this out to me.
All I have ever seen is You are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to the kingdom whatever you bound is bound and loose is loose. I do not see where anyone except Peter can bind and loose anything, not just sin as the others.
I have seem to missed this. I would appreciate it if anyone could point this out to me.
All I have ever seen is You are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to the kingdom whatever you bound is bound and loose is loose. I do not see where anyone except Peter can bind and loose anything, not just sin as the others.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Pope St. Gelasius (492-496)
“We do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgment of any bishops whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that any appeal should lie to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment…[This See] ratifies each Council by its authority, and safeguards it by its ceaseless oversight, in virtue of it leadership (principatu), which the Blessed Apostle Peter by the word of the Lord, and which by common agreement of the Church he has always possessed and still retains.”
“…The Apostolic See has frequently had occasion, as it has been said, by ancient custom, even without any previous council, both of absolving those whom a council had unfairly condemned and of condemning without the presence of a council those whom it ought to condemn.”
“…The canons…ordered it [the Roman See] to give judgment relative to the whole Church, but itself to have recourse to the judgment of none.”
(various Letters of Pope Gelasius I)
“We do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgment of any bishops whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that any appeal should lie to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment…[This See] ratifies each Council by its authority, and safeguards it by its ceaseless oversight, in virtue of it leadership (principatu), which the Blessed Apostle Peter by the word of the Lord, and which by common agreement of the Church he has always possessed and still retains.”
“…The Apostolic See has frequently had occasion, as it has been said, by ancient custom, even without any previous council, both of absolving those whom a council had unfairly condemned and of condemning without the presence of a council those whom it ought to condemn.”
“…The canons…ordered it [the Roman See] to give judgment relative to the whole Church, but itself to have recourse to the judgment of none.”
(various Letters of Pope Gelasius I)
- Status