Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[Mickey]

Neither can Augustine. (Really, he can’t.)

Then let us go to Sacred Scripture.

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:

Notice that Christ is the rock and the foundation of the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets (not only St Peter) with Jesus Christ as the corner stone.

 

[catharina]

Then let us go to Sacred Scripture.

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:

Notice that Christ is the rock and the foundation of the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets (not only St Peter) with Jesus Christ as the corner stone.

Yes, Christ is the Head of the Church. He is its cornerstone. For those who would follow Him in His Church, Christ appointed Peter as the leader of His Church (meaning Peter and his successors). Time marches on. Peter has gone to glory. His successors remain, one by one. If you have a problem with the primacy of Peter, then you have a problem indeed and I’ll keep you in my prayers regarding the issue.

(How you could imagine any structured society without a visible leader is unknown to me.)

 

[Mickey]

Yes, Christ is the Head of the Church. He is its cornerstone.

Amen.

For those who would follow Him in His Church, Christ appointed Peter as the leader of His Church

All the apostles were leaders of the Church.

If you have a problem with the primacy of Peter…

There is no problem with primacy. But supremacy/infallibility is an innovation of post-schism Rome and defined in 1870 by Pius IX. The strange dogma was unknown in the undivided Church.

(How you could imagine any structured society without a visible leader is unknown to me.)

All bishops are equal–as was seen in the undivided Church of the first millenium–and continuing today in the Holy Orthodox Church.

What I cannot imagine is why Rome elevated one bishop to a status of supreme infallible ruler.

Thank you for your prayers.
This sinner will pray for you also.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

 

[catharina]

Amen.

All the apostles were leaders of the Church.
There is no problem with primacy. But supremacy/infallibility is an innovation of post-schism Rome and defined in 1870 by Pius IX. The strange dogma was unknown in the undivided Church.
All bishops are equal–as was seen in the undivided Church of the first millenium–and continuing today in the Holy Orthodox Church.

What I cannot imagine is why Rome elevated one bishop to a status of supreme infallible ruler.

Thank you for your prayers.
This sinner will pray for you also.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

Thank you for your prayers too!

Shall we pretend that Christ would leave us a primary leader who might or might not be correct, might or might not be inspired, might or might not be faithful when teaching in matters of faith and morals? I, for one, can’t pretend that. Just as Peter had the final word (re circumcision, for example) way back then, so today does his singular successor. (Paul could huff and puff and beg and weep but until Peter decided and spoke, the issue was up for grabs.)

 

[Mickey]

Shall we pretend that Christ would leave us a primary leader who might or might not be correct, might or might not be inspired, might or might not be faithful when teaching in matters of faith and morals?

Jesus Christ left us a Church blessed with Apostolic succession. All bishops are equal. The gates of Hades shall not prevail. Let us all profess the faith of St Peter by confessing that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!

Just as Peter had the final word (re circumcision, for example) way back then, so today does his singular successor.

You may notice that in the Book of Acts Chapter 15, it is St James who presides over the Church in Jerusalem. It is St James who makes the ruling. It was St James’ jurisdiction. (of course Roman Catholic apologists are in denial of this fact).

(Paul could huff and puff and beg and weep but until Peter decided and spoke, the issue was up for grabs.)

That is a terrible statement to make. Please do not denigrate St Paul. It is not proper to speak down on any of the great saints.

 

[catharina]

Jesus Christ left us a Church blessed with Apostolic succession. All bishops are equal. The gates of Hades shall not prevail. Let us all profess the faith of St Peter by confessing that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!
You may notice that in the Book of Acts Chapter 15, it is St James who presides over the Church in Jerusalem. It is St James who makes the ruling. It was St James’ jurisdiction. (of course Roman Catholic apologists are in denial of this fact).
That is a terrible statement to make. Please do not denigrate St Paul. It is not proper to speak down on any of the great saints.

Am rushing to work but you misunderstood:

I’m incapable of denigrating St. Paul.

I LOVE ST. PAUL. ALWAYS HAVE!!!

 

[Mickey]

Remember when St Paul corrected St Peter?

Both are great Apostles!

But one did not rule supreme over the other.

Gal 2:11-15
**But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners.

 

[Alexios]

Servus,

So the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Hypostatic Union, the nature of the Holy Trinity, etc. were all as fully explicated in 33 AD, or 200 AD, as they were in 800 AD? No, we both know that’s not the case.

I’m not sure what your Vatican quote was trying to prove at all. Could you explain?

 

[JJR1453]

Jesus Christ left us a Church blessed with Apostolic succession. All bishops are equal. The gates of Hades shall not prevail. Let us all profess the faith of St Peter by confessing that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!
You may notice that in the Book of Acts Chapter 15, it is St James who presides over the Church in Jerusalem. It is St James who makes the ruling. It was St James’ jurisdiction. (of course Roman Catholic apologists are in denial of this fact).
That is a terrible statement to make. Please do not denigrate St Paul. It is not proper to speak down on any of the great saints.

Hello again Mickey,

Greetings in Christ!

As for your words regarding the Jerusalem council, I have offered a refutation to your claims of St. James’s “ruling”, in the thread titled “Papal Problems”, and I shall consider that you concede the matter until you can offer a rebuttle to the scholarly elucidations. This is a discussion after all, right?

God Bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

As for your words regarding the Jerusalem council, I have offered a refutation to your claims of St. James’s “ruling”, in the thread titled “Papal Problems”, and I shall consider that you concede the matter until you can offer a rebuttle to the scholarly elucidations.

Hello again JJ.

I am sorry, but I believe that your refutation is weak and incorrect. It is clear and apparent that St James has jurisdiction in Jerusalem and makes the ruling decision on the matter.

You are free to believe that I somehow “concede”–if that makes you feel better.

 

[JJR1453]

Remember when St Paul corrected St Peter?

Both are great Apostles!

But one did not rule supreme over the other.

Gal 2:11-15
**But when Cephas was come to Antioch, *I ***withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners.

For the subject matter at hand, this is only more to the point. St. Peter lapses, St. Paul corrects him, publically no less. Paul’s rebuke is publically executed *exactly because *it is Peter who has dissented, a figure who even sways Paul’s own man, Barnabas. Peter’s dissention can heavy consequences if not straightened, because of his authority. Peter is not applying his judgement and rule observed in the Jerusalem council. Let us turn to St. Jerome on the matter:

“No one can doubt, therefore, that the Apostle Peter was himself the author of that rule with deviation from which he is charged. The cause of that deviation, moreover, is seen to be fear of the Jews. For the Scripture says, that ‘at first he did eat with the Gentiles, but that when certain had come from James he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.’ Now he feared the Jews, to whom he had been appointed apostle, lest by occasion of the Gentiles they should go back from the faith in Christ; imitating the Good Shepherd in his concern lest he should lose the flock committed to him.”

Moreover, did not Paul dissent as well:

“O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter for dissimulation, because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles through fear of the Jews who’ came from James, why art thou, notwithstanding thine own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a Gentile, nay more, a Gentile himself (for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised)? Thou wilt answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.?’ If, then, thou forgiveth thyself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, forgive Peter also, who has precedence above thee, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”

God bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

For the subject matter at hand, this is only more to the point. St. Peter lapses, St. Paul corrects him, publically no less.

Amen brother. No Apostle had supreme rule.

 

[JJR1453]

Hello again JJ.

I am sorry, but I believe that your refutation is weak and incorrect. It is clear and apparent that St James has jurisdiction in Jerusalem and makes the ruling decision on the matter.

You are free to believe that I somehow “concede”–if that makes you feel better.

Fair enough, however, it is not myself who you find to have a “weak” and “incorrect” arguement, but that of scholars who have produced erudite works in the subject area of which we discuss. Nevertheless, perhaps you may define more clearly precisley why these refutations offered are so, as it were, “weak”.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Amen brother. No Apostle had supreme rule.

Selective reading? Or maybe more selective “proof-text”?

 

[Mickey]

Fair enough, however, it is not myself who you find to have a “weak” and “incorrect” arguement, but that of scholars who have produced erudite works in the subject area of which we discuss.

But you agree with these “scholars” and their “erudite works”

You provide three weak arguments from a protestant, a Roman Catholic author and a traditionalist.

Let us read it again.

Acts 15:13-20
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

 

[Mickey]

Selective reading?

No. Sacred Tradition.

 

[Mickey]

perhaps you may define more clearly precisley why these refutations offered are so, as it were, “weak”.

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

 

[JJR1453]

But you agree with these “scholars” and their “erudite works”

You provide three weak arguments from a protestant, a Roman Catholic author and a traditionalist.

Let us read it again.

Acts 15:13-20
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Why, then, have I taken from these three works?** Pecisely because they are not all Catholic viewpoints.** Yet, they come to the same conclusion which is opposed to the one you hold, which I may add, you have shown no support for other than your own “postulations”. As cited above, we see what St. Jerome has to say regarding the rule of Peter at the council. You were the one who wished to bring up the original language of the text, which I enthusiastically agree with you on, in order to decipher the true meaning coming from the Apostles themselves. You offer your own interpretation of the words “ego krino”, and I have offered my refutation coming from elucidations in the area by men who have given their research and time in the area enough to put it down to paper.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

Why, then, have I taken from these three works?** Pecisely because they are not all Catholic viewpoints.**

Are you protestant?

in order to decipher the true meaning coming from the Apostles themselves.

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

You offer your own interpretation of the words “ego krino”, and I have offered my refutation coming from elucidations in the area by men who have given their research and time in the area enough to put it down to paper.

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

 

[Mickey]

The history of the Apostolic Council (Acts, Chapter 15) speaks especially clearly against the supremacy of the Apostle Peter. The Antiochian Christians appeal not to the Apostle Peter for the resolution of their perplexity, as should have occurred if we are to believe the Catholic dogma, but to all the apostles and presbyters. We see in this excerpt from the book of the Acts of the Apostles that the question at the Council is subject to a general discussion by the Council and that the completion of the matter at the Council belongs to the Apostle James, and from his words the decision is written, and not from the words of the Apostle Peter.
The fact that Peter, according to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, is sent by the apostles (Acts 8:14), gives an account of his actions to the apostles and the faithful (Acts 11:4-18) and listens to their objections and even denunciations (Gal. 2:11-14), which of course, could not be if Peter were the prince of the apostles and head of the Church, also speaks against the Catholic teaching.
Fr V. Potapov