C
cguerber
Guest
I didn’t call you lost. I said my prayers go out to the lost…
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
Such “supposition” is totally unwarranted and totally unsupported. Christ gave His sole authority to Peter as his Supreme Vicar – why the demeaning of Christ concerning this fact?
Peter is the Rock on which Jesus built His Church.
On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].
“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “[Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”
“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].
The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].
Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter initiated the election of the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).
“So great fear came upon all the Church and upon all who heard these things. And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.” (Acts 5:11-13).
Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Why don’t you address rfournier103’s post #39? Why beat around the bush?
R
rfournier103
Guest
Please don’t forget #33 as well! Thanks!
E
ezeekl
Guest
Well that is your opinion and like the old saying, “opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has at least one.” But you are nondenominational so you are are own pope and imbued with infallibility - at least in your opinion. None the less,
Again your opinion. Actually that “religious system” is based upon a couple of bible verses. Specifically, Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 and all in between. But seriously, your post points out the biggest fallacy of non Catholic christians. And that is the acknowledgement, albeit unrecognized by protestants, inherent in protestant theology that says, in essence, that God was so short sighted that He could not see that men would have different opinions as to what scripture says and twist them to match their own opinions. That is so unscriptural as Peter states in 2 Peter 3:15-16:
“15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
No God was not short sighted. He provided for his Church so that it would know who was teaching the Truth and who was not. The early christians knew who taught truth. The test was simple; who had Apostolic Succession? Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
He goes on to say:
For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).
He is only echoing that which was written by Irenaeus in 189 AD:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the 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 with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2)."
And to which Augustine would in 397AD add:
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
One verse, you say? Hardly.
C
cguerber
Guest
I will continue to pray for the lost. Your theology dictates how you interpret scripture. My theology comes from scripture. Let’s just leave it at that. Peace.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Okay, if you want to be your own pope, so be it. But I think you have to face the facts. Your theology does not come from scripture. Your theology comes from your interpretation of scripture. In other words, your opinion. Pacem.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Well, without accents (which don’t appear until the 9th century MSS), the name can be read as Junia, i.e. in the feminine, or as Junias, masc. The Fathers seem fairly divided as to which way it should be read, but the tradition of the Eastern Church, and Chrysostom in particular, has been to read it as feminine. Junia (f) is a common and attested name in the Greco-Roman world; Junias does not appear to be so.
R
rfournier103
Guest
ACTS 8:29-35 ~ **The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” **So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth. In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.” Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, "I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else? Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
(Bold is mine)
2 Peter 2:20-21 ~ Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
(Bold is mine)
1 Tim 3:15 ~ **But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. **
(Bold is mine)
These three passages all support THE CHURCH’S position of interpreter of Scripture. These come FROM Scripture, NOT from some convoluted interpretation. It’s there in black and white. Clear as crystal.
Your statement of; “Your theology dictates how you interpret scripture. My theology comes from scripture. Let’s just leave it at that” is weak. Who gave YOU authority to interpret Scripture? What SCRIPTURAL evidence do you have to back it up?
Good night. I’ll pray for ya, buddy.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Side with Tertullian ? If he believed in Christ’s virgin birth are you not sideing with him? My last sentence told you why .Merely to show the debate of primacy succession took place then. It is not an invention of Protestantism. It is apart from any accusations against Callistus.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Reality is “us”, even councils ruled the church more than the pope on major issues. Notice the reality of the letter to Corinth, listen to Christ thru “us”. Both letters Corinth to Rome and Rome to Corinth are addressed to the perspective churches, “To the church at Rome, to the church at Corinth”. Don’t think there is any mention “leaders”, bishops, even head bishop . It is pure presumption ( tradition) to say the Pope was called to settle the matter, as opposed to the church at Rome that was ruled by a group of bishops. Perhaps it was like James writing the "edict ’ of the first council at Jerusalem. But James wrote it for the church at Jerusalem, for a type of council, not because he was a pope. As far as John being in Ephesus, not sure. thought he was an aged man on the isle of Patmos at the time. Besides,“all roads lead to Rome” and there were many “connections” in Rome via Paul.
Yes, was this the patriarchal system ? Didn’t the first councils treat them equally, that Rome did not have preeminence over the others ?
I thought this was not called by the church, but by the emperor, for unity sake. Was it unknown to the emperor that the Roman bishop was commander and in charge of unity in the church ? If there was disunity why did not Rome call for the council, with this friendly emperor ? Don’t get me wrong, there has always been some disunity and not always the churches fault (and it did not begin with Luther). And all patriarchs, including popes and councils, did much good to keep things “catholic” ( universal).
P
pocohombre
Guest
Just read the verses and don’t see where Peter plans for a successor. As a matter of fact all we have is appointing bishops and apostles (missionaries). See nothing of laying hands on a head bishop.or a transference of keys to one individual. Just the opposite of all the majesty and aura of today’s ceremonies.
Again, main point is not seeing anything in John about it.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Was he 3rd or 4th pope ? I understand it depends on which historical list you use. I think another poster (Abu, see my post #71 above for his quote) here had him as fourth pope.
It is evidence from a catholic point of view .It is also evidence for opposing arguments, for nowhere is head bishop or pope clement mentioned by anyone. For sure it is one church admonishing another .
P
pocohombre
Guest
There is the great commission and there is appointment or laying on of hands to presbyters. The commission is to make disciples not to make more head bishops and a heirarchy. Disciple is one who imitates. The imitation is not layered with offices or lay vs priest, though there are giftings and offices .A disciple does what the one before him does. That means you and me are to be disciples, and can be guided by the Holy Spirit and can carry on the gospel.You make it sound like only an apostle, a bishop can carry on the torch of the Holy Spirit.You make it sound like His unction is only on the “institution” of "succession"per CC definition.
P
pocohombre
Guest
I thought that even more important than the “succession” of the claimant was how do the claimants views match up to the apostolic teaching. Apostolic is as apostolic does. Actions can speak louder than an institutional laying on of hands, a challenge for all denominations .
A
Abu
Guest
False.
The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
So the other Apostles were NOT given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.
The second error is in disregarding history.
Christ Himself proclaimed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18). “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)
On the Council of Jerusalem, the Council took place on the eve of the dispersion of the apostles on their mission to “all the world.” St. James seems to have been designated as the future Bishop of Jerusalem, but there is no indication that Jerusalem itself had been designated as the “chief See”. At the Council, St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).
After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).
Thus the reality that heretics and miscreants are first punished by the first Vicar of Christ, St Peter, is yet another fact of Peter’s primacy so clearly and irrefutably established by Christ Himself.
About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).
Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”
Pope St Clement authoritatively reminds the still disorderly Church at Corinth that the Apostles ordained bishops and deacons and that “the effort to depose men from the episcopacy” is no “small sin.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 77].
F
FireFromHeaven
Guest
Just gonna throw in my two cents. I’m no expert on Ecclesiastical history, but weren’t the letters to Corinth written to all the members of the churches there? Wouldn’t it make sense then to address it to all members rather than just the bishop?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ah. Yes, I was aware of the gender issue.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, Clement was pope. Thank you.
Clement is mentioned in scripture and we have an extant letter from him. That’s more than we have from MOST of the Apostles!
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You imply a dichotomy where none exists.
- Status