E
ezeekl
Guest
Being protestant and therefore a sola scripturist, could you give us a scripture passage to support that statement? Or are we to understand that you just made it up?
- Status
J
jerome_ky
Guest
The fact remains that the Roman Church was THE Church for centuries. There would be no Bible if it weren’t for the Roman Church. There would be no Orthodox Churches if it weren’t for the Roman Church responding to an attack on her schismatic brethren with the Crusades (which are always shown as a black eye for the Church). The idea that the Roman Church had authority for centuries, and then suddenly lost it because a heretical priest named Martin Luther made up his mind to break from her, is downright ridiculous. The Roman Catholic Church is unique in history, no other church has her quantity and quality of Saints, her Magisterium is the only Christian teaching that continues to hold the high ground on contraception, in the face of TOTAL opposition on the part of the world. A debate which merely parses whether Jesus spoke to Peter alone or his successors is an empty exercise in semantics. The Pope is the head of a hierarchy of bishops and priests that are ordained to perform the Mass to bring us the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. That’s why the Pope is important, no more and no less.
E
ezeekl
Guest
No he doesn’t. He says the church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. He does not say that Paul was the head of the church at Rome. Here is what he said:
“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” (Against Heresies , 3:3:2 A.D. 189]).
J
JohnR77
Guest
defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/pquestions.html#eight
**8. Who had more authority in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter or James ? Some say that the reference to James’s “judgment” in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority.
** **ANSWER: **
**We read in Acts 15:2
“…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…” Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told “The whole assembly fell silent…”
**
** Acts 15:13-14, 19-21
“After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.” **
**However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James accepts what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision. **
**Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision “after much debate” which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. Standing demonstrates a posture of affirmation and enforcement.
The fact that the “whole assembly fell silent” after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote a few centuries later “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.) **
**Another observation comes to light when we compare the above text of Acts 15 with Galatians. It is worth noting that it was the people who “came from James” that had difficulty accepting the Gentiles in Galatians 2: 12. (see above.) Cf. Acts 11:2-4. Since it was the members of James’ own community that had the trouble of accepting the Gentiles, it would have been significant to them that Luke recorded that even James, their most immediate leader, had made his decision to follow Peter.
Presumably, James’ community would have been left with no other reasonable choice but to go ahead and make the similar decision to get in line behind Peter as well. We all have our own decision to make, but if we want to get through the pearly gates of heaven we need to decide to follow the one who holds the keys of the kingdom, the vicar of Christ, Peter and his successors.**
It seems that Peter had previously left Jerusalem to do missionary work in Galatia and other places leaving James behind to lead the community there at Jerusalem. However, Peter was still the earthly head of the whole Church. He alone was given the keys.****http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock3.html
**All of these points show that is was Peter who had the supreme authority at that first Council.
**
**John
**
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Who went astray?
An Overview of Early Eastern Heresies
Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.
Montanism was an apocalyptic sect which denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (199-217).
Docetism was the belief that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but only appeared to be so. The origins of Docetism derive from Hellenistic, Gnostic, and oriental notions that matter is essentially evil, which came out of Alexandria. Later christological heresies emanating from this school (such as Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and Monophysitism) were influenced by Docetism.
Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl… 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.
Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope”. His views were approved at Antioch.
Donatism held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.
Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355).
Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.
Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person - a God-man. Nestorius ( d.c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The co-writers of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.
The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) - who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Hadrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.
(Source: Dave Armstrong, socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html)
The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) - who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Hadrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.
(Source: Dave Armstrong, socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Who went astray?
A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs
Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.
At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.
Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.
Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.
(Source: Dave Armstrong, socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html)
P
pocohombre
Guest
Well, regardless you maintain the papacy but as for the reason of “harmony and guarantor of unity” conciliarism offers the same. I think I posted earlier that Constantine, not the bishop of Rome, called for the council 325 (Nicea?) for the purposes of unity (apparently there was enough disunity for such a call). He was finally a “friendly” emperor so not sure why Rome did not push for it first (or if it is as I state that patriarchs and councils ruled, why not them) ? I also stated that regardless of authoritative structure you will always have problems with unity. Popes have been boo-hood, (not listened to) as have councils, and as has plain old Scripture and on down the line of any truth carrier, including you and me. Again, I believe the ultimate guarantor of unity is the Holy Spirit, really working on every individual in the Body, with its undisputed officesof presbyters,elders and deacons.To go further is to institutionalize what only God can do. It may also be a bit “utopian” or a fix all mentality that may push us, tempt us where we need not go.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Butting in again RC.Good points. At times I have sensed a bit of murkiness coming from first millenia non-western churches. I have often thought that if Christianity were stronger, purer, in east perhaps Mohammed would have been sure it was the devil in his vision (he did wonder that at first but his wife convinced him otherwise, or so I have heard). Yet what were some of the good things coming from the “east” ? Could you see or compare good minds and spirits/theologians between the two ? Was Augustine "eastern "? How were they beyond 8th century ? I will agree the western church preserved a lot of good doctrine early on, but I will also say sometimes politics, church and otherwise, was the main preoccupation. I would also say have we not all read (from Protestants especially) some of the negatives of the western churches later on ? The counter-reformation was successful partly because there was so much to clean up on ( to which the Jesuits quickly addressed). Perhaps it was not so much doctrine but certainly institutional abuses and general carnality in the western church. Maybe like today Democrats just have wrong policy but Republicans have right policy but leadership issues, sometimes corruption issues or self interest issues.Who went astray?
A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs
Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.
At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.
Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.
Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.
(Source: Dave Armstrong, socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html)
P
pocohombre
Guest
As I recall, he did give a list of Roman bishops(first five or six), I thought he first cites Peter and Paul, then with those that followed.He did the same for two other cities (list of bishops). I would have to re-read though to be sure of Rome’s list. May not matter for I don’t think he was trying to prove papacy but careful succession of bishops in all the church, in every city.Thanks
A
Abu
Guest
Yet another falsehood – as the Holy Spirit was sent to Peter and the Apostles at Pentecost precisely to complete what Jesus had instituted – the Church and authority which Jesus had established, as He promised:
“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).
Thus did His institution, the Catholic Church, proclaim and enable that unity which exists and will exist until the end of time. The many thousands of disparate sects, each with its own self-will, are the obvious result of that disunity and chaos when Christ is not heeded.
The priesthood was established by Christ in His Apostles at the Last Supper, and only His Magisterium can verify or reject the legitimacy of the efforts to claim such a sacrament.
Pope Clement I writing to the Church of Corinth reminds the rebels at Corinth that the apostles ordained bishops and deacons, and unquestionably expects them to respect men: “who had been appointed by the apostles or afterward by other eminent men……The apostles are from Christ…they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.” The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 97-98].
M
Misplaced_Book
Guest
If Councils are not the final arbiter, than what is? I don’t understand the point of your question, because if it is to get a “gotcha” and score a point, than let me disabuse you of that now by pointing out that Papal Claims also are not so apparent in the Early Church either to use a legalistic view. Proof texting is pointless, as We can just easily produce them to support our POV. It is like the question of where is “First Among Equals” in the Early Church, which is an absurd question because the flip side question is where is Papal Infallibility? Latins claim that Papal Authority is “obvious”…we also say that Conciliar governance is “obvious.”
The Liturgy, and our Traditions…which Latins also claim to hold dear are a source of authority and reference. No Bishop could do to our Liturgy what your Pope Paul VI did. Tradition is not what the Pope says it is…Tradition is alive, and it transcends Patriarchs and Committees.
We are not Council Fanatics. The Councils are gatherings of Bishops to tackle problems and questions that have come up.
What Christological Issues have arisen that requires a council of the entire Church? Local Councils have been held multiple times since the schism, and have addressed issues that needed to be addressed. The only real test of what is an Ecumenical Council is time…and I would point out that the Latin Church has “adjusted” the number of Councils it recognizes as Ecumenical…so obviously it took time to settle the matter for the Latins too.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is Conciliar, and always has been.
You also mentioned the heretical Patriarchs in the East, we don’t deny that Arianism and other Heresies were a problem in the Early Centuries, and that Rome was a stalwart in those times…Old Rome defended the Orthodox Faith, which makes what happened later all the more tragic.
Your reduction of the Faith to numbers, be it your flimsy argument of the Great Commission and now are not solid, in that one could turn “statistics” on the Latins to prove all sorts of scurrilous things…but what would be the point? It would be an unfair distortion if I were to do that, and it is no less that when you do it.
E
ezeekl
Guest
I don’t believe that is correct. Giving credit where credit is due I think Constantine was, in my opinion, the greatest politician ever. At least he is the greatest politician of the first millenium AD. But Constantine wasn’t interested in religion or theology. He was interested in keeping peace in the empire. He had just won a war with Licinius and He needed time to consolidate the empire. The Arian heresy, however, was spilling over from the religious arena to the political with varous groups taking sides and a potential existed for civil war. Remember Constantine was not a christian at this time. He wasn’t baptized until years after the council while he lay on his death bed and then the baptism was performed by an Arian bishop. So why was he baptized by an Arian when the council denounced Arianism? The idea that Constantine ‘called’ for a council is disputed. Quite frankly we have no evidence that Constantine made the clarion call. What do know is that he wrote letters to bishops in which he practically begged them to attend. Constantine provided for the financial needs of the council and offered his summer palace in Nicea and also to pay the travel expenses envolved. A lot cheaper than war for sure.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Abu Abu, why do you like the veil that has been resewn with old testament division, division between our Lord, the Holy of Holies and the believer ? We are all priests and have full access, the veil (separating us from tabernacle-the Holy of Holies) being torn in two with the FINAL sacrifice. It shudders me to think you really believe that the Holy Spirit was only given to the apostles, to think you contradict John where he says we (not just bishops /apostles) have an unction from the Holy One and know all things. Are you not a disciple,of Christ, of the apostles, of the bishops and priests that have descended down to you today ? The full promise of the Holy Spirit was for the apostles and disciples,and for all the apostles and disciples to follow. A priest is a disciple as is a lay person. Both have baptism in Holy Ghost, though different giftings. As Augustine a good catholic states, “He” teaches us. Us with no division. How else do you think you could become a servant (presbyter/bishop,elder etc) in the early church, unless you showed fruits of this ( being baptized in the Holy Ghost, being taught of Him) like Stephen. Only then were you ordained for specific service.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Thank you. I don’t dispute his intentions and did mention for unity sake (of His empire of course). Do you also dispute that Constantine ordered 50 bibles to be made early on (was it Esubius that made them) ?
P
pocohombre
Guest
So you want me to look up scriptures that say we are adopted sons, we are grafted in, we have a down payment with the Holy Spirit of our inheritance,co-heirs,that he shepherds us…OK, in due time. I certainly don’t want you to take my word on it or think that I made all this up. Even with that, SS only works when as Augustine states,“He teaches us”,or as Jesus told St. Peter ,“the father in heaven reveals it to you”.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes,he said the binding was later given to the other eleven. Abu made no reference to keys being given to other eleven,just the binding.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Neither did Jesus because only Peter received them. And Protestant scholars agree.
Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom
W.F. Albright
“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)
“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)
William Barclay
We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.
He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…
Oscar Cullman
“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).
R.T. France
“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).
Gerhardt Meier
“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).
The Interpreter’s Bible
“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”
A
Abu
Guest
Excellent post, Randy (#138).
In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and *episcopos *for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).
St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.
“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].
Such speculative presumptions are the warp and woof of the confusion and errors about Christ and His Church founded on Peter as His Supreme Vicar.
In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and *episcopos *for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).
St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.
“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].
P
pocohombre
Guest
So what was meant when Abu stated the other eleven were later given the power to loose and bind ?
- Status