Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[JJR1453]

Uh…let’s see…perhaps I’ll go once again with St John Chrysostom:

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chysostom

Dear brother Mickey, you have already offered this same quote from St. John Chrysostom, to which I replied with yet another quote from the revered Saint:

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things?(John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather that the others [Galatians 1:18]. And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with,** He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren.** And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says,'If thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren,…and the third time He gives him the same injunction, **showing at what a price He sets the presidency over his own sheep. And if any one should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? This I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the world.” **(St. John Chrysostom)

Mickey, you had once said that the exchange of quotes from the church fathers can become tiresome; I absolutely agree with you on this. We can take from the words of the great saints and church fathers and twist them to our own agendas, something in which some Catholic apologetics are certainly guilty of as well.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

Dear brother Mickey, you have already offered this same quote from St. John Chrysostom, to which I replied with yet another quote from the revered Saint:

Brother JJ. You answer quotes with quotes. St John is very clear regarding St James in Jerusalem.

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things?(John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather that the others [Galatians 1:18]. And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with,** He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren.** And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says,'If thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren,…and the third time He gives him the same injunction, **showing at what a price He sets the presidency over his own sheep. And if any one should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? This I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the world.” **(St. John Chrysostom)

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it.
St John Chrysostom

Yes. I can probably match you quote for quote. It does not change the fact that St James was bishop of Jerusalem and presided over the first council. And it does not change the fact that the Pope of Rome did not have supremacy/infallibility in the early undivided Church.

 

[JJR1453]

Are you protestant?

Your three scholars are surely not deciphering the true meaning coming from the Holy Apostles.

You may believe as you wish. I will go with St John Chrysostom on this one.

No, I am Catholic.

I would rather present refutations, and be open to rebuttles directed at myself, rather than “rotfl”. In my view, it’s just not charitable. However, please do not interpret this as any passing of judgement, of which I have no justification in doing.

What, then, if the quote by St. John Chrysostom, which you have cited, appears to conflict with the quotes that I offered from St. Jerome? What are we to do then? My guess, would be to not take certain quotes by the Saints and Fathes out of context and thus initiate in “proof-texting”. Also, if I may ask, are you opposed to the work being done in the area of biblical and biblical linguistic examination? This is what I have offered and what, by your request, has been put under the microscope.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

I would rather present refutations, and be open to rebuttles directed at myself, rather than “rotfl”. In my view, it’s just not charitable.

My apologies. When I use smilies for levity, it is sometimes construed as lack of charity. Forgive this sinner.

 

[JJR1453]

My apologies. When I use smilies for levity, it is sometimes construed as lack of charity. Forgive this sinner.

No worries! We all have our own beliefs on certain issues, and I also believe that we can all learn a lot from eachother. I’ll take your above rotfl as I sign of enthusiastic conviction!

God bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

Also, if I may ask, are you opposed to the work being done in the area of biblical and biblical linguistic examination? This is what I have offered and what, by your request, has been put under the microscope.

I do not get too involved in the linguistic studies. (and my Greek, Hebrew and Latin is virtually non-existent). I have seen much bias and twisting there (according to a person’s orientation).

It is clear that most English translations render “Ego krino” as “I judge” or “I decide”.

But even if the true and proper translation in English should have been “It is my opinion”—it does not change anything. St Peter spoke first. St James spoke last. St Paul and St Barnabas spoke in between. It was an Ecumenical Council. It was a Holy Spirit led concensus.

St James was the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem.

In early Church history it was the council that was infallible–not one man–not the bishop of Rome. It deeply saddens me that Rome broke from Tradition and elevated the Pope of Rome to a postion that would have been foreign to St Peter himself.

May God bless you and your loved ones.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

 

[JJR1453]

I do not get too involved in the linguistic studies. (and my Greek, Hebrew and Latin is virtually non-existent). I have seen much bias and twisting there (according to a person’s orientation).

It is clear that most English translations render “Ego krino” as “I judge” or “I decide”.

But even if the true and proper translation in English should have been “It is my opinion”—it does not change anything. St Peter spoke first. St James spoke last. St Paul and St Barnabas spoke in between. It was an Ecumenical Council. It was a Holy Spirit led concensus.

St James was the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem.

In early Church history it was the council that was infallible–not one man–not the bishop of Rome. It deeply saddens me that Rome broke from Tradition and elevated the Pope of Rome to a postion that would have been foreign to St Peter himself.

May God bless you and your loved ones.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

Although I believe you have significantly simplified the council, I would agree that it is incumbent upon on us to examine both the structure and the context of said council. That means observing in depth not only James’ words and actions, but also that of Peter’s, Paul’s, and Barnabas’ as well as the reaction from the congregation present. At the moment I am pressed for time but I will certainly be back to offer some “Papist” insight.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

I will certainly be back to offer some “Papist” insight.

:bigyikes:

 

[zagjames]

These fallacious appeals to authority are really frustrating in this whole discussion. If the Pope is not infalliable then it makes little sense to rely on the quotes of St. John Chrysoston as a source that should end the discussion. You are unintentionally raising him to this position of authority on the issue. They only way you can justifibly invoke the Church Fathers as a semi-infalliable source, and a proof of tradition is to show the consenious of the fathers (both eastern and western fathers).

To me the reading of the text seems clear. There was much debate about the inclusion of gentiles, and whether or not they needed circumsision, etc. Peter spoke*,(6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’")* his word being the highest authority ended the discussion Paul and Barnabus went on to confrim from what they had witness to the authenticity of what Peter had said and the host of the Council the bishop of Jerusalem said okay, well we got our decision.

St. James as the host presided. Makes sense. Just cause the Pope leds his thoughts to the issue doesnt mean that he has to preside. It was Peter’s comments that swayed all to the decision that was reached. After Peter spoke, Paul and Barnabas affirmed what Peter said, and James affirmed it. No dissention was given after Peter spoke. That in and of itself says alot. It shows that Peter held influence over others and had the final say.

Peter said the scriptures point to this, gentiles can be christian without being jewish, that God will know them and they will know God.
Paul and Barnabas say they have seen this happen, Peter has to be right.
James says well then it is settled, I as the Host give it a thumbs up, we are all in agreenece, Peter’s statement is what the decision of the Council will be based upon.

I think I have been repetitive enough. To me it is clear that Peters opinion was the deciding factor, that alone shows his authority. Being the biggest boy on the block doesnt always mean you have to bang the gavel at every meeting, sometimes you can just sit in back, and speak up when the time is right to settle the dispute.

Pax vobiscum

 

[catharina]

These fallacious appeals to authority are really frustrating in this whole discussion. If the Pope is not infalliable then it makes little sense to rely on the quotes of St. John Chrysoston as a source that should end the discussion. You are unintentionally raising him to this position of authority on the issue. They only way you can justifibly invoke the Church Fathers as a semi-infalliable source, and a proof of tradition is to show the consenious of the fathers (both eastern and western fathers).

To me the reading of the text seems clear. There was much debate about the inclusion of gentiles, and whether or not they needed circumsision, etc. Peter spoke*,(6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’")* his word being the highest authority ended the discussion Paul and Barnabus went on to confrim from what they had witness to the authenticity of what Peter had said and the host of the Council the bishop of Jerusalem said okay, well we got our decision.

St. James as the host presided. Makes sense. Just cause the Pope leds his thoughts to the issue doesnt mean that he has to preside. It was Peter’s comments that swayed all to the decision that was reached. After Peter spoke, Paul and Barnabas affirmed what Peter said, and James affirmed it. No dissention was given after Peter spoke. That in and of itself says alot. It shows that Peter held influence over others and had the final say.

Peter said the scriptures point to this, gentiles can be christian without being jewish, that God will know them and they will know God.
Paul and Barnabas say they have seen this happen, Peter has to be right.
James says well then it is settled, I as the Host give it a thumbs up, we are all in agreenece, Peter’s statement is what the decision of the Council will be based upon.

I think I have been repetitive enough. To me it is clear that Peters opinion was the deciding factor, that alone shows his authority. Being the biggest boy on the block doesnt always mean you have to bang the gavel at every meeting, sometimes you can just sit in back, and speak up when the time is right to settle the dispute.

Pax vobiscum

Thank you for laying it all out. Yes, it is exactly that simple.
Yes, this is the explanation that I’ve heard all of my life and I’m 62 yrs old.

I have to wonder if those who do not see it, are, in fact,
those who choose their own blindness on the issue.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Mickey, you had once said that the exchange of quotes from the church fathers can become tiresome; I absolutely agree with you on this. We can take from the words of the great saints and church fathers and twist them to our own agendas, something in which some Catholic apologetics are certainly guilty of as well.

I agree. Such endless exchanges of quotes with no progress for either side has caused me to begin to avoid these threads.

God bless,

Adam

 

[holdencaulfield]

I agree. Such endless exchanges of quotes with no progress for either side has caused me to begin to avoid these threads.

This has gotten a bit superfluous I agree. However I hold to my stance.

 

[Mickey]

It shows that Peter held influence over others and had the final say.

No. It shows that St Peter spoke. All agreed. St James spoke last and ratified the decision.

It was a concensus–an Ecumenical Council. It does not prove papal supremacy nor infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

I have to wonder if those who do not see it, are, in fact, those who choose their own blindness on the issue.

Oftentimes, those who accuse others of being blind, are in fact those who are without sight.

 

[catharina]

Oftentimes, those who accuse others of being blind, are in fact those who are without sight.

Did you make that up right now?
Or does it have a point of reference?

“Oftentimes … .?” You don’t say.
How “authoritative” of you. Is it a binding belief?

You are quoting whom?

I’m quoting Our Lord:
“There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.”

Not to sound totally simple-minded, but what is your expectation for the time of your death?
Do you plan to convince Peter that James is running a separate heaven and that James is holding the keys for you?

Matthew 16:

"15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Mickey]

"Did you make that up right now?

Or does it have a point of reference?

Romans 2:1
Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest.

Romans 14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. And he shall stand: for God is able to make him stand.

Luke 14:4
Because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.

“There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.”

Amen.

Not to sound totally simple-minded, but what is your expectation for the time of your death?

Whenever the Lord calls me home.

Do you plan to convince Peter that James is running a separate heaven and that James is holding the keys for you?

No. I plan on saying, “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.”

"Matthew 16

A beautiful passage of Scripture indeed. But it is not saying that the bishop of Rome will have supreme authority and infallibility.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Isa 6:9-10
And he said: Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not. 10 Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.

John 9:39
And Jesus said: For judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may become blind.

 

[catharina]

Mickey;3544967[COLOR=black:
[QUOTE]
No. I plan on saying, “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.”
[/QUOTE]
COLOR=black

Why did I even bother responding to you?

I’m not surprised that you have “planned” something to say at judgment.

You might want to acknowledge that you believe Our Lord Who died for us and founded His church for us never intended to place Peter in charge - in YOUR opinion - despite what He said. Or you might “plan” on presenting yourself in total silence without excuse or plea.

OR you might embrace the truth re Peter before you die.

I do hope that none of us plans to face the Lord with arguments as to why HE was wrong.

 

[Mickey]

Why did I even bother responding to you?

There is no need to be pompous and abrasive.

I’m not surprised that you have “planned” something to say at judgment.

Yes. I will attempt to do as the publican, and ask my Lord and Saviour for mercy.

Or you might “plan” on presenting yourself in total silence without excuse or plea.

I will ask for mercy.

OR you might embrace the truth re Peter before you die.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

St Peter is a great saint and holy Apostle. The Holy Orthodox Church dedicates a great feast day for the Holy Apostles SS Peter and Paul preceded by a two week fast.

 

[catharina]

There is no need to be pompous and abrasive.

I state the truth as it is known to me.
To you, that is pompous and abrasive?
Then I must say, that’s your loss, not mine.

 

[catharina]

Indeed,

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Affirming that, I also affirm that:
if I call to Peter, Peter answers;
if I call to Paul, Paul answers;
If I call to both, both answer.

I do not not call to Peter while expecting Paul to answer.

Prayer. It’s so wonderful.