B
BrianH
Guest
Hegesippus 160 AD
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Really? On the contrary he disagrees with you:
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
“See the unanimity of the apostles,” he says, on Acts 2:4: “they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach.” “Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ’s right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles, always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others.”
Again, he remarks how St. Paul “gives up to Peter the first place.” (Hom 4 in Acta 3, vol IX, 46[37]; Hom 65[66] in Matt 4, vol VII, 622[648], ibid Hom 50[51], 506[515]; Hom 35 in 1 Cor 5, vol X, 303[329]; Hom 8 in Acta 1, vol IX, 71-72[64-65]).
“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I don’t remember saying that I didn’t think Peter was the prince of the apostles. Nice strawman argument. Please address the evidence I posted. Does St. John Chrysostom’s exegesis disagree with your exegesis of Acts 15 or not?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Strawman argument? Likely excuse. Apparently his words do not go down with you very well do they? Cannot accept it,so let us turn the tables. Been there…done that a million times. Is his quote rebuking the primacy-yes or no?
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Quote from other thread started by Jacob50 - dealing with “how do you find the true Church, if a schism occurs within Orthodoxy?”:
ROCOR was a relatively small Church (perhaps 200,000 believers in the USA, with some more elsewhere in the Americas and Australia), and they were out of communion with at least 90% of world Orthodoxy. First of all, they defined themselves as an Old Calendar Church, thus they were in communion with Old Calendar Churches such as the Serb Orthodox, however out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Antiochian Orthodox, with the majority faction of Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, and so on.
It should be mentioned that the Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches underwent schisms of their own due to the Calendar, so that the majority of those Bishops and people follow the New Calendar, whereas a minority refused to adopt the New Calendar and formed Old Calendar Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian Churches in schism with their New Calendar counterparts.
As far as ROCOR was concerned, they were in communion with the Old Calendar minority Churches of those countries, but not with the majorities following the New Calendar. For example, the monastic communities of Mount Athos follow the Old Calendar, thus ROCOR was in communion with them. They also had no problem with the Serb Orthodox Church, since that Church still follows the Old Calendar. However, our ROCOR priest instructed the faithful not to attend and not to take Holy Communion at the mainline Greek and Antiochian Orthodox Churches which follow the New Calendar.
In addition, ROCOR was out of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and the 90-150 million faithful under the jurisdiction of the MP, because they regarded the MP as an apostate Church following Patriarch Sergius’ apostasy in 1927, under Bolshevik/Communist pressure. So, here we had a Church (ROCOR) of less than 1 million, in schism with other Orthodox such as 90-150 million under the MP, 20 million Romanian (New Calendar) Orthodox, 8-10 million Greek (New Calendar) Orthodox, more than 10 million Antiochian (New Calendar) Orthodox, and so on.
The position of ROCOR (as well as Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Churches) was this: they are the true Church, even if they are in minority.
When the Catholic Church adopted the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar) towards the end of the 16th century, all Eastern Orthodox Churches universally condemned the New Calendar. All EOC continued to condemn the New Calendar, again and again, dozens of times at various Holy Synods for more than 300 years, until the EP of Constantinople suddenly changed his mind around 1922, and adopted the New Calendar.
Now, according to ROCOR, and according to the small Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian factions that stayed with the Old Calendar and went into schism with anyone adopting the New Calendar, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has fallen into heresy, and the majority part of the Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian etc Churches who followed him by adopting the New Calendar, have also fallen into heresy.
Thus, even though tens of millions of Greek, Antiochian, Romanian, Bulgarian faithful are now following the New Calendar, and only a handful stayed with the Old Calendar, the true Orthodox Church is found where these Old Calendar faithful are, not where the schismatic majorities who have fallen into heresy and adopted the New Calendar - thus was the belief of ROCOR, as well as the Old Calendar Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches.
OK, first I thought this was going to be some hypothetical question, but I did find myself in a situation exactly like this in 2004. I met some people who attended Divine Liturgy at ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), the Church to which the great Saint, ascetic, and wonderworker St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (deceased 1967) used to belong during his lifetime.Jacob50 said:
ROCOR was a relatively small Church (perhaps 200,000 believers in the USA, with some more elsewhere in the Americas and Australia), and they were out of communion with at least 90% of world Orthodoxy. First of all, they defined themselves as an Old Calendar Church, thus they were in communion with Old Calendar Churches such as the Serb Orthodox, however out of communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Antiochian Orthodox, with the majority faction of Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, and so on.
It should be mentioned that the Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches underwent schisms of their own due to the Calendar, so that the majority of those Bishops and people follow the New Calendar, whereas a minority refused to adopt the New Calendar and formed Old Calendar Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian Churches in schism with their New Calendar counterparts.
As far as ROCOR was concerned, they were in communion with the Old Calendar minority Churches of those countries, but not with the majorities following the New Calendar. For example, the monastic communities of Mount Athos follow the Old Calendar, thus ROCOR was in communion with them. They also had no problem with the Serb Orthodox Church, since that Church still follows the Old Calendar. However, our ROCOR priest instructed the faithful not to attend and not to take Holy Communion at the mainline Greek and Antiochian Orthodox Churches which follow the New Calendar.
In addition, ROCOR was out of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and the 90-150 million faithful under the jurisdiction of the MP, because they regarded the MP as an apostate Church following Patriarch Sergius’ apostasy in 1927, under Bolshevik/Communist pressure. So, here we had a Church (ROCOR) of less than 1 million, in schism with other Orthodox such as 90-150 million under the MP, 20 million Romanian (New Calendar) Orthodox, 8-10 million Greek (New Calendar) Orthodox, more than 10 million Antiochian (New Calendar) Orthodox, and so on.
The position of ROCOR (as well as Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Churches) was this: they are the true Church, even if they are in minority.
When the Catholic Church adopted the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar) towards the end of the 16th century, all Eastern Orthodox Churches universally condemned the New Calendar. All EOC continued to condemn the New Calendar, again and again, dozens of times at various Holy Synods for more than 300 years, until the EP of Constantinople suddenly changed his mind around 1922, and adopted the New Calendar.
Now, according to ROCOR, and according to the small Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian factions that stayed with the Old Calendar and went into schism with anyone adopting the New Calendar, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has fallen into heresy, and the majority part of the Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian etc Churches who followed him by adopting the New Calendar, have also fallen into heresy.
Thus, even though tens of millions of Greek, Antiochian, Romanian, Bulgarian faithful are now following the New Calendar, and only a handful stayed with the Old Calendar, the true Orthodox Church is found where these Old Calendar faithful are, not where the schismatic majorities who have fallen into heresy and adopted the New Calendar - thus was the belief of ROCOR, as well as the Old Calendar Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches.
C
ChrisRedfield47
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Peter issued the judgement to allow the gentiles in the “whole” Church through baptism and not circumcision, because Peter alone is the one that recieved the vision from God from heaven to allow the gentiles in the Church.
James only offers a food discipline to follow for his Jewish and gentile converts, but James disciplines are not for all of the Church because Paul places different disciplines for his gentile converts. But ALL obey Peter to allow the gentiles in the Church by baptism and not circumcision.
Acts.10:9* The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime… 11 He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. 13A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.” 14But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”d 15The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”e 16This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky.
17* While Peter was in doubt about the meaning of the vision he had seen, the men sent by Cornelius asked for Simon’s house and arrived at the entrance… 25h **When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage. *… 28 and said to them, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean.
34Then Peter proceeded to speak and said,* “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality… 44p While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.* 45The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, …** Then Peter responded, 47“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?”q 48He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.**
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
GENERAL WARNING
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Reading Acts 15 would actually help; reading it, the Orthodox view of it makes more sense than the Catholic one. Essentially, the Catholic interpretation lops off 13-21, making it seem Peter made the decision. However, it is very clear it was James who made the final decision (v. 19-21), not Peter.
You seem to confuse this with his next directive in v. 20-21; however, look at v. 19 wherein what he said: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to Go”. Stop troubling them with what? The food discipline? If one reads it carefully, v. 19 actually refers to what Peter spoke of. v. 20-21 then also mentions about the other disciplines. So it is clear James made the final decision, not Peter. Peter’s role in the affair was to give testimony to what he experienced as well to testify that the Gentiles are no different from them. However, as one can read, he did not make a definitive decision on this one, but James did.
M
Milliardo
Guest
What exactly do you mean by this?
M
mardukm
Guest
The Absolutist Petrine view is lopsided, for it does not take into account the collegial nature of the situation.:tsktsk: The Low Petrine view is inconsistent, for it grants to St. James a headship and authority that they constantly deny any head bishop has.:juggle:
You seem to forget that St. Peter already made the decision for the whole Church in Acts 11.
The purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was to judge on some practical application of St. Peter’s teaching. St. Peter’s teaching was from God himself, as Acts records (“God ordained that from MY MOUTH…”). This is the only time that I, as a High Petrine advocate, will ever admit that a decision by a Pope was unilateral, for the plain and simple fact of the charism of inspiration/revelation that existed only among the Apostles, and no longer exists today.Blessings,
Marduk
M
Milliardo
Guest
Nothing on Acts 11 even imply that thing; where do you get this notion? If Peter already decided for the Church, as you propose, then the event in Acts 15 would have been redundant. As it is, from how the affair played out, the issue was not even settled until James made the final decision.
M
mardukm
Guest
And that is your misunderstanding of the whole point of infallibility. You seem to think that infallibility is for the purpose of ramming the Truth at the expense of conscience. You seem to think that when an infallible teaching is proposed by the Church, then it will never be opposed by anyone. That’s rather naive, brother Milliardo. The purpose of infallibility is not to force belief, but to authoritatively establish the Truth. Just because someone opposes infallible teaching does not mean that the Truth has not been authoritatively established beforehoand.
And neither did the decision of the Council settle the issue because we know that Judaizing existed in the Church well into the second century. So that basically refutes your whole understanding of what Church authority is for.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
It seems that you are having trouble understanding me, so I’m going to run you through this step by step.
First, we have Isaiah, who posted this question about Acts 15 (bolded for convenience):
You posted your argument against the idea that James makes the judgment in Acts 15 here:
I posted a rebuttal with a patristic exegesis of Acts 15 which states that James does make the judgment:
Instead of staying on the topic of Acts 15, you responded with this post, in which you employed a strawman argument by making it seem as if my argument was against the headship of Peter, when in fact my argument was that James is the one who makes the judgment in Acts 15 (in case you are unfamiliar, a strawman argument is a fallacy of relevance in which a dummy or straw man argument is set up and then refuted, when in fact the opponent never made the argument in the first place):
Now notice here again how you have employed a fallacy of relevance in the bolded statement (whether St. John Chrysostom believed in the headship of Peter does not bear relevance to whether he believed that James was the judge in Acts 15). The underlined statement is another logical fallacy, a loaded question, in which one asks a rhetorical question such that a direct reply of either yes or no will only serve the agenda of the one asking the question (the classical example is, ‘is it true that you still beat your wife?’).
If you wish to talk about the headship of Peter, I would be more than willing to do so with you (although there may not be much to say, since we probably agree on the matter). If you would like to discuss Acts 15 and who is the judge in this passage, that is also fine. I think, however, that it would be a good idea for us to keep these two discussions separate for clarity of purpose and clarity in our exchanges.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Where did I even mention about infallibility? I have not even touched on the issue yet. What I’m merely pointing out was that at no point in Chapter 11 did Peter speak for the Apostles nor for the whole Church, for that matter. It’s as simple as that.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Closed by request of the OP
- Status