M
Mickey
Guest
I am so sorry…and I do not mean to offend. But I will take the interpretation of St Augustine on this over your interpretation any day.
The deepest wells have the clearest water.
If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?
- Status
The deepest wells have the clearest water.
R
rinnie
Guest
Okay let me get this straight. SO you are saying the HOC takes her interpretations of the SS from ST and the RCC does not? Is that what you are saying?Exactly! The Holy Orthodox Church takes her interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures from the Sacred Tradition. Now you are getting it!
Tell me Mickey what do you think of the interpretation of Luther I showed earlier? Does it not amaze you how he himself agreed that the Peter had the keys to the kingdom.
Lets talk about the Early Fathers of the Church. How about Clement of Rome about 96 writing to Corinth about this disunity> But if any disbety the word spoken by him PETER through us.
Tertullian in the late 100’s and the early 200 who said Was ANYTHING withled from Peter who was called the Rock on which the Church should be built, who obtained the keys to the kingdom heaven with the power of binding and loosing in heaven and earth.
Why did he mention ONLY PETER
St Cyprian spoke of the roman Church founded on Peter who fixed his chair in Rome he speaks of the church as ROME as our Mother Church the ROOT of Universality and Catholicity.
How about ST Cyprian says a PRIMACY is given to Peter and it is thus made CLEAR that there is but ONE church and ONE chair.
Lets talk last but not least about St Ausustine who stated Who is ignorant that the CHIEF Apostolate is to be PREFERRED to any Episcopate? OF the Dignity of PETER he say in whom the PRIMACY of the Apostles shone forth with excelling grace.
Thats quite compelling would you not agree.
Here is a BIG problem. If one should admit ONE falsehood, ONEun truth then guess what? The devil won. Christ said that would never happen.
I have never seen YET a truth that was revealed to me by my Pope that HE said came from God and it not be the true word of God. If any Pope could lie and say that a truth came from God, and it did not, then guess what. Then the POPE overpowered GOD. God said that WON"T happen.
I KNOW what the word teaches, I know what my church Teaches. The LORD made Simon and SIMON ALONE the rock of his church and gave HIM the keys to the kindom.
This is and ALways HAS been a teaching from the time of Christ.
J
jam070406
Guest
Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter?
R
rinnie
Guest
But you have failed to show me where ST Augustine and I are in battle.
Why is Peter the CHIEF Apostolate. Did you not say they were all Equal? SO then the Chief has not authority over his Indians? St Augustine said I will repeat AGAIN, his Primacy of the Apostles shown forth with Excelling Grace. What is Primacy mean then?
His exact words Primacy OF the Apostles:extrahappy:
M
Mickey
Guest
Because “Petra” refers to the rock of Simon’s confession of faith.
Why were Ss John and James named Boanerges?
M
Mickey
Guest
Martin Luther used to be RC. Do you take your interpretations from him?
M
Mickey
Guest
You are the one disagreeing with him…not me.
J
jam070406
Guest
Simon’s name was changed. John’s and James’s were not.
M
Mickey
Guest
Okay. Let’s talk about St Clement. He is talking about St Peter apostolic authority. True.
Remember that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, keys which each one carries with him if, when asked, he confesses the faith.
**Tertullian, Scorpiace, 10, PL 2, 142 **
They were all shepherds equally even though the flock was one. And it [the flock] was shepherded by the apostles, as they conformed to the same thought.
(St Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae, V.)
And where is your Rock now? Where is the solidity? Christ Himself was the Rock, while Simon was nothing more than a …rocky Peter. The true Rock arose to stregthen Peter, who cowered and abandoned the Rock.
St Augustine, Homily CCVIL, 1
Dear rinnie, I would appreciate it if you could give source info and direct quotes from the Holy Fathers instead pf paraphrased quotes. Thank you.
M
Mickey
Guest
I answered you question. You did not answer mine.Simon’s name was changed. John’s and James’s were not.
J
jam070406
Guest
Jesus didn’t change their names. He changed Simon’s.
M
Mickey
Guest
I answered you question. You did not answer mine.
J
jam070406
Guest
I don’t understand the question. What is Boanerges? And who’s name was changed to it?
M
Mickey
Guest
Our Lord named Ss John and James, “Boanerges” (an Aramaic name meaning “Sons of Thunder”) because their zeal was ardent.
M
Mickey
Guest
This thread is becoming a repeat of many other threads and I seem to be the sole Orthodox left here posting…so I am going to unsubscribe and bow out.
Peace and prayers
Peace and prayers
R
rinnie
Guest
I never took my interpretations from him. I am told to obey my Church not Luther. With that said my honest opinion of Luther is hot and cold at times.
My honest belief of him is he was indeed a great gift to us from God, but then somehow he failed to continue to use his grace given to him from God. Maybe he was overstressed, had a nervous breakdown, mental illness. I am not sure.
Luther was tormented by voices. We both know God does not torment people. but we know who does.
But I can see where in the end he did in his own way make it back to the faith he once had, and the true teachings he once portrayed. I guess like the rest of us my dear friend, I pray for him, and rely on the mercy of God.
Today is a pretty bad day for me. It is my brothers Birthday, he would have been 48. What makes it worse its my 30th Wedding aniversary. Its a mixed emotions for me.
But at the risk of being off thread may I give some advice to everyone. NEVER get married on someones brithday etc. You never think of their death at that time.
BUt I have also learned to rejoice, but like Luther I also pray for my Brother, I pray he is celebrating with God and my Dad, but you can never play God and take for granted. SO if he is still in the process of being made perfect for God my prayers are sure to help.
So can I ask you all for an extra prayer for him today. His name is Joey. Thanks guys. God bless, and now I have to make the best of my aniversary, But I am blessed with a wonderful husband, wonderful kids, Mother, Mother in law, others sisters another brother and many good friends. And Mickey you are always at the top of my list.
Talk to you all tommorow. GOd be with you.
R
rinnie
Guest
No, not to my knowledge. He indeed gave them a nickname. But I Have one to. My Family callls me by my nickname all the time. But they never changed my real first name. That stands. So I do not see where this has anything to do with Peter.Simon’s name was changed. John’s and James’s were not.
Christ changed Simon to Peter.
He did not nickname Simon Peter he Changed his name.
L
lyrikal
Guest
I’ll go with St. Cyprian and St. Leo the Great on this one and say they’re NOT all equal. They all have power and authority but they’re NOT all equal. You quote passage after passage that says that All the Apostles or Bishops have power and authority but those passages don’t mean that there is no distinction in power.
I don’t know how you can make such a statement. I showed you a quote from St. Leo the Great that says otherwise. You have chosen to ignore it and have completely given me your “private interpretation” of a historical passage that you seem not to want to deal with. Let me give you the part where St. Leo the Great makes a distinction between powers of Bishops:
But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided…And though they (the Bishops) have a common dignity, **yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction **of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.
-Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 14.12 to to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica
If you’d like the whole context, see post #97.
Here is yet another one that I quoted from St. Leo:
Sermon III
- And so, dearly beloved, with reasonable obedience, we celebrate today’s festival in such a way that in my humble person he may be recognized and honored, on whom rests the care of all the shepherds, as well as the charge of the sheep commended to him. His dignity is not diminished by even so unworthy an heir. Hence the presence of my venerable brethren and fellow priests, as much desired and valued by me, will be still more sacred and precious if they will transfer the chief honor of this service, in which they have deigned to take part, to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see but also the primate of all bishops. When therefore we utter our exhortations in your ears, holy brethren, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are, because it is his warning that we give and nothing but his teaching that we preach
Here is more…
“From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, **it is really Peter who rules **them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvelous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him.”
-Sermon 4,2 taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 3, page 275.
Now, can you please deal with these texts and tell me what you think St. Leo the Great is saying here without quoting other passages from St. Leo the Great that say all Bishops have authority? What is he talking about here in these passages? What does he mean by “distinction of power” or “Peter rules all of the other Apostles” or why would he tell a Bishop “let all be referred to us” or anything that deals with those passages above?
I keep asking these questions and all I keep getting is:
To try and find the papacy in the early church is like trying to find a helicopter plane in 2700 BC!
That is hardly an answer. All the answers keep dealing with everything and anything that has nothing to do with the passages I am presenting.
J
jam070406
Guest
Is your nickname Rinnie?No, not to my knowledge. He indeed gave them a nickname. But I Have one to. My Family callls me by my nickname all the time. But they never changed my real first name. That stands. So I do not see where this has anything to do with Peter.
Christ changed Simon to Peter.
L
lyrikal
Guest
But when there is a council held by “many bishops” and they come out of there with a teaching and afterwards send a letter to the Bishop of Rome, then we kind of have a different story, don’t we?
The case you are making is: All Bishops are equal.
The case I am making is: All Bishops have authority and power but there is a distinction of this authority and power and therefore not ALL Bishops are equal.
What we see happening with regards to the letters is: There is a council being held with many bishops. Council is done. A letter gets sent to the Bishop of Rome by St. Cyprian saying:
“And lest perchance the number of bishops in Africa should seem unsatisfactory, we also wrote to Rome, to Cornelius our colleague, concerning this thing, who himself also holding a council with very many bishops, concurred in the same opinion as we had held, with equal gravity and wholesome moderation.”
(if you’d like the context, go to post #92)
So question is: If ALL Bishops are equal, then why would a council with many Bishops possibly seem “unsatisfactory” that St. Cyprian would have to send a letter to the Pope? Please deal directly with this question without doing any dances.
Says you.
Let’s see what a Historian has to say:
"The theory of [Pope] Stephen, that kindled his contemporaries to such utter exasperation, was rather that the Church was a monarchy, **a congeries indeed of bishoprics but all of them subject to the superior authority of the one bishop who sat upon the throne of the prince of the apostles [Peter]. The Roman See, as distinct from the Roman church, was and sought to be predominant, not **for its situation or other wordly advantes, not even for its treasure of doctrine, bequeathed by its two founders, but, primarily and fundamentally, because its bishop was heir in his own person to the unique prerogative conferred upon Peter. To Peter had been granted a primacy among the apostles, so to the Roman bishop was assigned a leadership over the bishops…The Arians, who had ousted Athanasius from Alexandria, offered to submit the case to [Pope] Julius for his judgment. Athanasius himself and other orthodox refugees from eastern sees went directly to Rome as to a court of appeal…
and…
“At the general Council of Sardica [343 AD]…the orthodox Easterners and Westerners stayed behind to issue another, in which they claimed for the Roman bishop an appellate jurisdiction over all the Church in honor of ‘the memory of Peter, the apostle.’…[by the time of Pope Damasus]…there can be no doubt that large numbers of eastern Christians had by this time become convinced of the genuine superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans…it was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome…From the time when Eleutherus was asked to condemn the Montanists, through the period when Callistus, Stephen and Dionysius revised and interpreted dogma, down to the days when the Nicene creed was defended on the ground of its Roman origin and Liberius and Damasus endorsed or rejected eastern declarations of faith according as they did or did not measure up to their own standards, the Roman bishops asserted their right to speak for the tradition of Peter.” (Shotwell/Loomis, page 217-228)
I wish people would actually take the time to read my posts before replying. Also, even if we assume that your statement is true regarding the honor given to the See of Rome and not the Pope, we can conclude that there are two reasons why there is an honor:
1.) Because Rome was the center of the world.
2.) Because Peter went to Rome.
Perhaps, we can also add that the reason why Peter went to Rome was BECAUSE Rome was the center of the world. It would only make sense that he would go there since he believed to be the leader of the Apostles.
I don’t see why we would need to have an either/or here. I think they go well together (assuming your argument is correct).
- Status