Interesting quote on the Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
Again, the council assembled, and there was “much debate”. Then Peter stood up and gave his judgment, and everyone fell silent. Who argued with Peter?
Also, regarding the Gentiles (who were not circumcised), Peter had already preached the Word, which converted them before the Council. And Peter commanded them to be Baptized. He asserted this at his declaration in the Council.

Acts 10
While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.*And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.*For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,“Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ**. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Click to expand...
Now this is something I clearly had no idea about. I never knew Peter baptized Gentiles who were not circumcised. The whole issue I remember about people with Saint Paul is that he was a man who never met Jesus, yet he gave the rights to be free from being circumcised and yet a follower of Jesus who himself was circumcised. Why didn’t Christians ever point to Peter and show that Peter who was a personal disciple of Jesus had no problem with this? I think I have to dig deeper and find out for myself how much role Peter actually played in the New Testament writings.
rcwitness said:
Start a thread about that very thing. You would probably be surprised at what evidence there is.
Click to expand...
I personally don’t see the need to start a new thread because I already am engaging in talks with other fellow Catholics, who I am begging to help me find any useful evidence to demonstrate that Universal Jurisdiction given to the Popes were exercised in the early church among other things. As far until now, they can only share theirs and the Catholics interpretation on what the Bible itself teaches. But as far as sources outside scriptures goes, I am still looking into that.
 
OneBlanketBoss said:
Now this is something I clearly had no idea about. I never knew Peter baptized Gentiles who were not circumcised. The whole issue I remember about people with Saint Paul is that he was a man who never met Jesus, yet he gave the rights to be free from being circumcised and yet a follower of Jesus who himself was circumcised. Why didn’t Christians ever point to Peter and show that Peter who was a personal disciple of Jesus had no problem with this? I think I have to dig deeper and find out for myself how much role Peter actually played in the New Testament writings.
Click to expand...
Ok. I guess Peter, and the eleven were the main focus, and when Paul was converted and given his assignment, the dedication which he pursued the kingdom was unmatched! He worked harder than the rest, and showed such little partiality. And that is what many Catholics get caught up in… partiality. Whether it’s to clergy, or just the need to see the “Catholic banner” on it to accept. I think we can see Catholic Teaching all over Christendom. And there is anti-Catholic beliefs and behavior within our membership.
I personally don’t see the need to start a new thread because I already am engaging in talks with other fellow Catholics, who I am begging to help me find any useful evidence to demonstrate that Universal Jurisdiction given to the Popes were exercised in the early church among other things. As far until now, they can only share theirs and the Catholics interpretation on what the Bible itself teaches. But as far as sources outside scriptures goes, I am still looking into that.
Click to expand...
ok. Just remember… Scripture is more important than what “has been given to the Bishops of Rome”. It’s obvious Peter was given, and held an office. The succession takes searching history and Fathers, and then the role and authority is also there, yet many resisted it. I think Pope Julius would be a good one to study (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Julius_I). I enjoy that period and thru St’s Damasus, Jerome and Augustine.
 
rcwitness said:
Ok. I guess Peter, and the eleven were the main focus, and when Paul was converted and given his assignment, the dedication which he pursued the kingdom was unmatched! He worked harder than the rest, and showed such little partiality. And that is what many Catholics get caught up in… partiality. Whether it’s to clergy, or just the need to see the “Catholic banner” on it to accept. I think we can see Catholic Teaching all over Christendom. And there is anti-Catholic beliefs and behavior within our membership.

ok. Just remember… Scripture is more important than what “has been given to the Bishops of Rome”. It’s obvious Peter was given, and held an office. The succession takes searching history and Fathers, and then the role and authority is also there, yet many resisted it. I think Pope Julius would be a good one to study (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Julius_I). I enjoy that period and thru St’s Damasus, Jerome and Augustine.
Click to expand...
Wow! thank you very much! This will push me forward further studies.
  • But I must pose this question. What was the deal with breaking the Mosaic laws. Why do non-Christians point to Saint Paul accusing him of nullifying the original halacha?
 
OneBlanketBoss said:
Wow! thank you very much! This will push me forward further studies.
  • But I must pose this question. What was the deal with breaking the Mosaic laws. Why do non-Christians point to Saint Paul accusing him of nullifying the original halacha?
Click to expand...
An interesting thing about Pope St. Julius, is that he upheld the authority of the Bishop of Rome before we even had a correct Canon of the New Testament! The first correct list of the New Testament Bible was provided by St. Athanasius. And Pope St. Julius supported St. Athanasius. And so did Pope St Damasus.
 
OneBlanketBoss said:
Sounds like you are right, it was Peter who appointed Mathias according to Acts 1.
Click to expand...
No, Peter put the matter to the other disciples and they together appointed Matthias by lot:
Acts 1:15:
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)… So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Click to expand...
 
It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
  • Pope Boniface VIII
 
Augustine said:
No, Peter put the matter to the other disciples and they together appointed Matthias by lot:
Click to expand...
You do realize that I was asked when Peter ever made a Universal decision, right?

What I was saying, is that he told the Apostles, and disciples they needed to replace Judas. That’s Universal instruction.

I also say, that he told the Council that Gentiles can and should receive Christian Baptism (acceptance by the Church), which he had already commanded some to be Baptized (Cornelius), after God showed him to call no man common or unclean, and show no partiality. The Council fell silent at his decision.
 
OneBlanketBoss said:
Sounds like you are right, it was Peter who appointed Mathias according to Acts 1. However, did not others partake in legalizing things in the early Christian community? Saint Paul argued circumcision and other laws in the old testament were no longer valid and majority of them accepted it.

Peter made the decision…that they are not valid anymore, not Paul:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
My problem with this is, there is lack of evidence to prove in the Primacy at all considering history does not tell us anything to prove the Catholics position on this.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Lack of evidence for the Papacy? Have you read the Formula of Hormisdas of 519 AD?

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

This issue was settled 1500 years ago. You’re quarreling about something that was resolved 1500 years ago. Just submit to Rome and move on with your life in the faith. It’s as simple as that.
 
PluniaZ said:
Lack of evidence for the Papacy? Have you read the Formula of Hormisdas of 519 AD?

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.”

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The%20Formula%20of%20Pope%20St%20Hormisd

This issue was settled 1500 years ago. You’re quarreling about something that was resolved 1500 years ago. Just submit to Rome and move on with your life in the faith. It’s as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Why should I submit to Rome? I already am living my life in faith. Give me some clear evidence that Saint Linus who you believe is the second pope to exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever?
 
rcwitness said:
What I was saying, is that he told the Apostles, and disciples they needed to replace Judas. That’s Universal instruction.
Click to expand...
Not, it’s not. It’s a sign of initiative, of primacy.
rcwitness said:
I also say, that he told the Council that Gentiles can and should receive Christian Baptism (acceptance by the Church), which he had already commanded some to be Baptized (Cornelius), after God showed him to call no man common or unclean, and show no partiality. The Council fell silent at his decision.
Click to expand...
No, Paul and Barnabas went on to make the case. Then, James made the final decision and concluded the council.
 
CCC §847:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
Click to expand...
Therefore, submission to the pope is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
 
Augustine said:
Not, it’s not. It’s a sign of initiative, of primacy.
Click to expand...
We disagree
No, Paul and Barnabas went on to make the case.
Click to expand...
Peter already silenced the assembly
Then, James made the final decision and concluded the council.
Click to expand...
If You are expecting Peter to have screamed and demanded everyone to obey, you aren’t understanding the office. Peter said what was necessary, and it did the job. James expressed his agreement. Nobody Lorded over others. It was not necessary. Bishops are certainly permitted to speak like James did.
 
Invincible ignorance doesn’t mean certain things are not necessary… it just means that sin requires knowledge (or vincible ignorance)
 
Here is a letter from St Jerome to Pope St Damasus:

The letters from Jerome to Damasus are examples of the primacy of the See of Peter:

Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.
 
rcwitness said:
Ummm, this declaration of the faith was promulgated by the Pope, right?
Click to expand...
So was the CCC, which ranks higher than a mere bull, Unam Sanctam, hardly an ex catedra pronouncement and more related to the Roman diocesan matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top