S
steve_b
Guest
Chrissy, look at the time line. Since they got that wrong, how can one trust the rest? Oh and incidently, Catholicism isn’t a denomination.
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Fr Ambrose:
Fr Ambrose:
Irenaeus:“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the [local] churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles” (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus:“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 180]).
Written in Hebrew. That means Kepa for Peter which is rock. No play on words between petros and petra
Gaius: Regarding Peter and Paul " [snip] For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).
Dionysius of Corinth:“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).
AND at Corinth? Did Paul when he wrote 2 letters to the corinthians mention or greet Peter in Corinth? No. So what is your point above that Paul didn’t mention Peter in Rome?
Tertullian: “Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood” (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1 [A.D. 207]).
Clement of Alexandria: “The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Lactantius:“When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew” (The Deaths of the Persecutors, 2, 5 [A.D. 316]).
Optatius:“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head–that is why he is also called Cephas–of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
space doesn’t allow me to go on. You gotta do a better job in checking the stuff you copy from.
Are you copying from a polemicist again? Let the quotes from those closest to the time, make the point.
Fr Ambrose:
So? Tell me you’re not hanging your entire case on THAT!.
Fr Ambrose:
Let those who were closer to the apostles tell the story.
Irenaeus:“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the [local] churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles” (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus:“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 180]).
Written in Hebrew. That means Kepa for Peter which is rock. No play on words between petros and petra
Gaius: Regarding Peter and Paul " [snip] For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).
Dionysius of Corinth:“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).
AND at Corinth? Did Paul when he wrote 2 letters to the corinthians mention or greet Peter in Corinth? No. So what is your point above that Paul didn’t mention Peter in Rome?
Tertullian: “Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood” (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1 [A.D. 207]).
Clement of Alexandria: “The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Lactantius:“When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew” (The Deaths of the Persecutors, 2, 5 [A.D. 316]).
Optatius:“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head–that is why he is also called Cephas–of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
space doesn’t allow me to go on. You gotta do a better job in checking the stuff you copy from.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b:
Pope Benedict XVI advocates breaking up of the Latin Patriarchate
You can find the entire article at
georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/reese/ec/ec-6komonch.htm
Comments by Fr. Joseph Komanchak, Professor of theology at The Catholic University of America.
"Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of “patriarchal areas,” that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the
episcopal conferences.
"In an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,” Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form. "
"After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded:
“Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous
And so are the Orthodox! Very very much! The new Pope is in favour of restructuring the Catholic Church to bring it closer to the structure of the Orthodox Church. I shall be praying that the Lord gives him a long life and good health so that he is able to get these things underway. God bless him.
Pope Benedict XVI advocates breaking up of the Latin Patriarchate
You can find the entire article at
georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/reese/ec/ec-6komonch.htm
Comments by Fr. Joseph Komanchak, Professor of theology at The Catholic University of America.
"Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of “patriarchal areas,” that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the
episcopal conferences.
"In an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,” Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
Code:
"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church"After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded:
“Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous
patriarchates' or great churches’ or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future.”
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b:
See Message # 256
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
So that was Catherines bogus info?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b:
We have heard quite a lot, from GAssisi for example, of how close the Roman Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church are to full communion. But reading such material from the Coptic Pope makes one wonder… The indication is that you are a long way from any real possibility of union.
The book (with the extract above) is on the Web
stmark-la.com/book.html
Good grief, no! She (Elizabeth) was quoting from a book of the teachings of her own Pope, Pope Shenouda III.
We have heard quite a lot, from GAssisi for example, of how close the Roman Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church are to full communion. But reading such material from the Coptic Pope makes one wonder… The indication is that you are a long way from any real possibility of union.
The book (with the extract above) is on the Web
stmark-la.com/book.html
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Keep in mind also, it’s a discussion, not a blueprint. JPII was great at exploring possibilities. And then Cardinal Ratzinger, picked by JPII to fill the office of the Doctrine of Faith, was with JPII the entire way. We’ll see where Pope Benedict XVI takes us.
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
“The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Coupled with all the other quotes from ECF’s, available to everyone on the planet, in their originals, how does Shenouda make such a mistake?.
As you can tell from our conversations, I prefer original documents that haven’t been run through someone elses biased commentary. That stuff just comes back to bite you. Now that I know where it came from, I’m doubly surprised Shenouda III, was so far off on his “facts”. When he said Peter didn’t preach in Rome, that even contradicted his own Clement of Alexandria who said,
“The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Coupled with all the other quotes from ECF’s, available to everyone on the planet, in their originals, how does Shenouda make such a mistake?.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b said:
There’s something else rattling around my head… when Saint Mark wanted to write down Peter’s account of what the Lord had said and done -in other words, what became the Gospel according to Mark- Saint Peter did not want to be bothered.
I’ve always laughed when I think of that. It says volumes about things such as sola scriptura, etc.
Anybody remember where the account of this can be found?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
steve b:
The fact is that the entire New Testament which the Church has accepted as inspired was written in Greek.
If there was ever a Gospel from Matthew written in Aramaic, not one tiny fragment of it has survived.
The Gospel of Matthew which the Church accepted and sealed from its very first days as inspired by God is in Greek.
There is, I believe, a theory that Matthew wrote his Gospel in both Aramaic (for the Jews) and in Greek (for the rest of the world.) But whether or not true, this theory does not alter the fact that God gave us the inspired Gospel in Greek.
You cannot build a case on what is nothing more than speculation. There is no Aramaic (not Hebrew) Gospel of Saint Matthew and nobody has a clue what word was used in it.
The fact is that the entire New Testament which the Church has accepted as inspired was written in Greek.
If there was ever a Gospel from Matthew written in Aramaic, not one tiny fragment of it has survived.
The Gospel of Matthew which the Church accepted and sealed from its very first days as inspired by God is in Greek.
There is, I believe, a theory that Matthew wrote his Gospel in both Aramaic (for the Jews) and in Greek (for the rest of the world.) But whether or not true, this theory does not alter the fact that God gave us the inspired Gospel in Greek.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
I’m curious about Matthew 27:46 presented here in both Greek and English - Which language is Jesus speaking when He quotes Psalm 22:2 “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” The Matthean verse is rendered in Hebrew. In Mark 15:34, the quote is “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” Isn’t this Aramaic? Does this provide evidence of the language Jesus spoke? Or is it fallacious?
Matthew 27:46
peri de thn ennathn wran anebohsen o ihsouV fwnh megalh legwn hli hli lama sabacqani tout estin qee mou qee mou inati me egkatelipeV
27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Biblical scholar Fred P. Miller ao.net/~fmoeller/biograph.htm states about this passage:
"…since all the records say that the Nazarene Carpenter was not formally educated and spoke the language of the people of the Near East,- Aramaic. Thus he did not quote David’s prophetic psalm and cry out Eli (my God) but his petition was to Eloi (Aramaic for my God) (Mark gives the unhelenized proper pronunciation of what the Galilean Rabbi said in Mk 15:34) and he did not use the Hebrew word “azavtaniy” but the Aramaic equivalent “Shabaqtaniy” which was “Helenized when translated into the Greek in which the statement in Matthew was recorded.” lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-June/003351.html
With Christ,
Jerry
Hi Father Ambrose -
I’m curious about Matthew 27:46 presented here in both Greek and English - Which language is Jesus speaking when He quotes Psalm 22:2 “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” The Matthean verse is rendered in Hebrew. In Mark 15:34, the quote is “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” Isn’t this Aramaic? Does this provide evidence of the language Jesus spoke? Or is it fallacious?
Matthew 27:46
peri de thn ennathn wran anebohsen o ihsouV fwnh megalh legwn hli hli lama sabacqani tout estin qee mou qee mou inati me egkatelipeV
27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Biblical scholar Fred P. Miller ao.net/~fmoeller/biograph.htm states about this passage:
"…since all the records say that the Nazarene Carpenter was not formally educated and spoke the language of the people of the Near East,- Aramaic. Thus he did not quote David’s prophetic psalm and cry out Eli (my God) but his petition was to Eloi (Aramaic for my God) (Mark gives the unhelenized proper pronunciation of what the Galilean Rabbi said in Mk 15:34) and he did not use the Hebrew word “azavtaniy” but the Aramaic equivalent “Shabaqtaniy” which was “Helenized when translated into the Greek in which the statement in Matthew was recorded.” lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-June/003351.html
With Christ,
Jerry
S
Subrosa
Guest
Here is Mark 15:34
kai th wra th ennath ebohsen o ihsouV fwnh megalh legwn elwi elwi lamma sabacqani o estin meqermhneuomenon o qeoV mou o qeoV mou eiV ti me egkatelipeV
15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
elwi
eloi
el-o-ee’
of Chaldean origin ('elahh 426 with pronominal suffix) my God:–Eloi.
sabacqani
sabachthani
sab-akh-than-ee’
of Chaldee origin (shbaq 7662 with pronominal suffix); thou hast left me; sabachthani (i.e. shebakthani), a cry of distress:–sabachthani.
Jerry
kai th wra th ennath ebohsen o ihsouV fwnh megalh legwn elwi elwi lamma sabacqani o estin meqermhneuomenon o qeoV mou o qeoV mou eiV ti me egkatelipeV
15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
elwi
eloi
el-o-ee’
of Chaldean origin ('elahh 426 with pronominal suffix) my God:–Eloi.
sabacqani
sabachthani
sab-akh-than-ee’
of Chaldee origin (shbaq 7662 with pronominal suffix); thou hast left me; sabachthani (i.e. shebakthani), a cry of distress:–sabachthani.
Jerry
S
Subrosa
Guest
S
Subrosa
Guest
Def’s! We like def’s! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
elwi
eloi
el-o-ee’
of Chaldean origin ('elahh 426 with pronominal suffix) my God:–Eloi.
sabacqani
sabachthani
sab-akh-than-ee’
of Chaldee origin (shbaq 7662 with pronominal suffix); thou hast left me; sabachthani (i.e. shebakthani), a cry of distress:–sabachthani.
elwi
eloi
el-o-ee’
of Chaldean origin ('elahh 426 with pronominal suffix) my God:–Eloi.
sabacqani
sabachthani
sab-akh-than-ee’
of Chaldee origin (shbaq 7662 with pronominal suffix); thou hast left me; sabachthani (i.e. shebakthani), a cry of distress:–sabachthani.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Lumen Gentium:
Sub
I’m gonna say no. Several churches around here use this practice.
Sub
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The evidence which we have is that our Lord was speaking in Hebrew and quoting the first verse of Psalm 21 (LXX).
His hearers did not understand what he was saying because the Jews of the day spoke Aramaic; Hebrew was a language which they heard only in the synagogues and did not use as an everyday language. That is why they mistakenly thought that he was calling on the holy prophet Elijah.
Nwo, returning to the question of the language of Matthew’s Gospel, don’t you think it is curious that after Matthew writes this verse in a Gospel supposedly written in Aramaic he immediately adds a Greek translation of these words. Why? Why on earth would he have chosen to translate this one phrase in all of his Aramaic Gospel into Greek? He was writing for Jews who spoke Aramaic and knew enough written Hebew from the synagogue… why would he have to translate it? For whom? Why would he drop ONE Greek phrase into a Gospel otherwise written entirely in Aramaic?
S
Sarah_Jane
Guest
“Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 47)
D
didymus
Guest
F. Ambrose posted:
You can find the entire article at
georgetown.edu/centers/w…ec-6komonch.htm
Comments by Fr. Joseph Komanchak, Professor of theology at The Catholic University of America.
"Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of “patriarchal areas,” that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the
episcopal conferences.
"In an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,” Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church
presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form. "
Would it be possible to separate the offices of the Papacy and Patriarch of the Latin Rite? What B-16 is describing here sounds good but wouldn’t it be problematic for future Popes (under a plan like this) to be accepted as supreme authority if he were a patriarch himself as well?
Maybe we could make a start by dropping the “Roman” from “Roman Catholic”.
You can find the entire article at
georgetown.edu/centers/w…ec-6komonch.htm
Comments by Fr. Joseph Komanchak, Professor of theology at The Catholic University of America.
"Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of “patriarchal areas,” that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the
episcopal conferences.
"In an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,” Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church
presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form. "
Would it be possible to separate the offices of the Papacy and Patriarch of the Latin Rite? What B-16 is describing here sounds good but wouldn’t it be problematic for future Popes (under a plan like this) to be accepted as supreme authority if he were a patriarch himself as well?
Maybe we could make a start by dropping the “Roman” from “Roman Catholic”.
S
Subrosa
Guest
Hi Didymus -
didymus:
God bless,
Subrosa
The Vatican II document “Lumen Gentium” espouses the concept of a decentralized church, however, the decree has not been followed. In actuallity, the church has become monolithic and completely centralized in Rome. This has brought many complaints from bishops throughout the church. The overiding hope is for a more decentralized church.
The problem for the Pope is that it doesn’t all fall apart if the church decentralizes. As with the Protestant and Orthodox churches, the lack of strong central leadership has brought fractures and schisms, more so with the protestant churches.
God bless,
Subrosa
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Would you be able to substantiate that? Please give the names of the Churches which have been formed as the result of schism from the Orthodox Church over the last 1000 years. I can think of one, the Old Believer schism which is still with with us.
Can you supply a corresponding list of all the Churches formed by schism from the Catholic Church over the same period?
I think you will find that the latter Church which claims that it is protected from schism by virtue of having the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is, ironically, the one which has suffered the most schisms.
- Status