Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

  • Thread starter Thread starter SingleMomMonica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reference check continues…

“Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs” by Conciliar Press 2006”
This one (finally) might have something connected to Chrysostom quote.

There are notes from Whelton’s book on the website
thewillardpreacher.com/RomanCatholicPopesAndPatriarchs.htm :
Thesaurus of Greek Fathers
In order to show that the eastern fathers had always recognized the authority of Rome, a forger created a collection of mixed genuine and forged quotations that was titled the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers. The quotes were attributed to St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Maximus the Confessor.
But Whelton has a rather non-scholarly reputation because of his mangling patristic quotes and failing to give proper citations. (See, cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/a-review-of-wheltons-popes-and-patriarchs/ and links therein.)

Can someone provide a fuller discussion from the book with the proof of forgery of the particular Chrysostom passage quoted by SMM and relevant citations to the primary sources? Thanks.
 
Here is a link to the reference originally quoted to support the claim that the cited Chrysostom quote is a forgery, Lord Acton’s “Lectures on modern history” :
archive.org/stream/cu31924028040396/cu31924028040396_djvu.txt

I searched for text to find anything specific to support the claim of SMM regarding the Chrysostom quote, and came up totally empty. Some general comments about forgery and about the the stake, but nothing the provides any probative evidence for SMM’s claim.
 
Are there any authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom left? What documentation can you provide where we can further research this?
There are plenty of authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom. Unfortunately, Catholic sources of quoting his works are full of forgeries attributed to him.

I have already provided you a lot of documentation you can access so you can further research it for yourself. If want to research it, I have provided you enough information to get started. If you choose to dismissed it, not research it and continue to accuse me falsely then there is no point in continuing any communication with you because you have proven yourself to be obstinant.

May the blessings of the Lord be ever upon you.

I will not longer be reviewing or following up on this thread since to-date not a single person who agrees with Tim Staples rather than St. John Chrysostom on the issue presented in this thread has been able to provide any eCF proof for their position on the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. From what I have gathered from this thread, the only eCF to have written on that Council was John Chrysostom & his position is not in agreement with Tim Staples nor the Catholics that have posted here. Those who have posted here have continued to attempt to change the topic of this thread instead of provide proof for their position which is opposite that of the early Church on the actual topic of this thread.
 
There are plenty of authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom. Unfortunately, Catholic sources of quoting his works are full of forgeries attributed to him.

I have already provided you a lot of documentation you can access so you can further research it for yourself. If want to research it, I have provided you enough information to get started. If you choose to dismissed it, not research it and continue to accuse me falsely then there is no point in continuing any communication with you because you have proven yourself to be obstinant.
Unmitigated Chutzpah. You have not been accused of anything, but there has been some examination of your so-called documentation. It is sorely lacking, to put it very generously.
 
There are plenty of authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom.
Please provide a list so that we will know which are authentic and which are not. This is crucial information for all Christians and should not be hidden.
I have already provided you a lot of documentation
But nothing that answers the actual questions I asked.
will not longer be reviewing or following up on this thread
So you’re going to let your smears on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America stand as they are?
 
SingleMomMonica-

I would like to reiterate a question asked of you previously.

Since your faith in the Catholic Church was undermined by something you read, could you provide a link or reference to the exact paragraph that rattled you?
 
It appears that SMM may have bailed on this thread, but I’ll post the following just in case:

Why does it matter who was the leader of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Is it your belief that the Early Church looked to James or Peter as the head of the universal Church?

Does the Church trace the line of popes back to Peter or to James?

Did the Catholic Church trace the line of popes to Peter or to James prior to the Orthodox schism?

Were those who are now considered Orthodox in agreement with this papal lineage prior to the Great Schism?
 
A follow up on the Williard Preacher notes from Whelton’s book. The quote from Chrsysotom that SSM contends to be a forgery is listed under the rubric of “Thesaurus of the Greek Fathers”. This book , according to William Webster, was the work of “a Latin forger [who] had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged”. He submitted the work to Pope Urban IV.
(See christiantruth.com/articles_roman_catholicism.php).

The Chrysostom quote, however, is not from some “catena of quotations”, but is found in the full sermon in Migne’s, PG. (See In Illud Hoc Scitote… at khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20Chrysostom_PG%2047-64/)
I haven’t seen anything so far that vitiates this passage from the PG. Hope you al the l enjoy the Chrysostom library. :cool:

I am not sure that Willard Preacher is fair to Whelton, but reaching to the Thesaurus is a dodge. And perhaps an empty one at that: since it is claimed to include both genuine and spurious quotes, we still need some proof of which is which.
 
A review of the book “Popes and Patriarchs” states " …nor the sheer weight of the many and repeated testimonies by Fathers, both East and West, as to the special position of the See of Rome in the Church. Mr. Whelton simply dismisses all except one or two of such Eastern statements by saying they are forgeries - quite an astounding remark which he does not back up by any citation."

amazon.com/Popes-Patriarchs-Orthodox-Perspective-Catholic/product-reviews/1888212780/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
 
Brian, I read your comment here but? for the life of me, I have no clue what your driving at?

Peter’s statement earlier is against scripture? I only know of "one time the whole assembly fell silent after the Only Speech recorded in Acts 15 was from Peter followed by Paul’s and Barnabas signs and wonders. James concession begins after the one silence of the whole assembly. Do you know of 2 silence occasions?

Do you deny that Peter possessed the Word from heaven to dictate the authoritative teaching about Gentiles, before the councile convened, from Acts 10?

When it is black and white, interpretation is not needed, when one tries to force a 20th century interpretation into the what is black and white in the scriptures, is either doubting God’s word to be what it is, or reject the revealed Truth, because it rejects any new interpretation outside Apostolic Tradition and Teaching.
Two silence occasions
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they." 5
12
Twhole assembly fell silent,he and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
13
6 After they had fallen silent, James responded, "My brothers, listen to me.
Another version
12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul as they declared what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, hearken unto me.
The Greek uses the words denoting this twice as well.blueletterbible.org/tools/getVerses.cfm?b=Act&c=15&show_all=1&VrsStart=12&VrsEnd=14&version=nkjv&s=2
 
It appears that SMM may have bailed on this thread, but I’ll post the following just in case:

Why does it matter who was the leader of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

Is it your belief that the Early Church looked to James or Peter as the head of the universal Church?

Does the Church trace the line of popes back to Peter or to James?

Did the Catholic Church trace the line of popes to Peter or to James prior to the Orthodox schism?

Were those who are now considered Orthodox in agreement with this papal lineage prior to the Great Schism?
Well the earliest church historian Hegesippus states they did. Naturally myths and legends develop as Rome developed in power after the fall of Jerusalem. If Jerusalem had not fallen…but alas it did:(
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor,2 nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place:3 for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel’s, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias,4 which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
 
**I’m not **trying to change the course of the thread to Peter’s Papal Supremacy - but you cannot have this debate without including that fact.

You want to have a debate based on a few lines of Scripture - in the context that YOU want it without listening to ANYBODY’s explanation when it differes with your opinion. The only evidence you’ll consider to are quotes from the Fathers.
**This is patently ridiculous **- and a waste of time.

Several posts back - you were pretty much slapped in the face with the Mark Bonocore arguments about James speaking for himself and his followers when he said:
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.

**This destroys your entire position, but you won’**t consider it because you can’t argue the point intelligently.
James and his followers were speaking for themselves? How did you get that? The we? It appears that James **and **Peter use that terminology (“we”). How did you reach that conclusion because the Bonocore quote certainly does not.
 
**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen (248 A.D.)

“If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.)

“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).

**Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

**Ambrose **

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
The great Eastern theologian St. Maximus the Confessor (of the 7th century) defended Rome’s primacy:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

(newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm)
 
Two silence occasions
Another version
12Then all the multitude kept silence
I am sorry BrianH; your “another version” is confirming **only one silence **that the “whole” assembly fell silent after “Peter’s speech”.

Apart from the NIV, NAB, here is a quote from the “reputable” Navarre bible.

Acts 15: 12 And all the assembly KEPT SILENCE; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replies, "Brethren, Listen to me. 14 Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written.

I have read your sources confirming only one silence after Peter spoke. Can you explain in your own words how you view Two separate silences? Unless you are precluding to a silence after Peter’s dissertation, and the keeping silence until Paul and Barnabas confirmed the signs and wonders of God’s Word from Peter’s mouth, as two silences to two separate instances? But all came from the one silence after Peter spoke. I place Peter then all silence, then Paul and Barnabas the assembly remained silent, in other words no opposition or arguments were ever heard again after Peter’s speech, only obedience followed from James, who exercised his authority over Jerusalem, which was no small task to say the least.

Now, the Whole assembly fell silent after Peter’s speech, and remained silent until Paul and Barnabas concluded. Meaning that a silence remained from the assembly, which removed any doubts or misunderstandings from Peter’s speech. And the council heard no more arguments pro or con after Peters’ speech. James upon hearing Peter’s speech followed by Paul and Barnabas signs and wonders (confirmation), being Bishop of Jerusalem made his ruling for his community, what Peter, Paul and Barnabas were already practicing and preaching baptism apart from circumcision to the Gentiles. James and his Jewish community needed to hear it from the Horses’ mouth who hears from God Peter himself not James.
 
There are two seperate ones

15:12 Ἐσίγησεν δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἤκουον Βαρναβᾶ καὶ Παύλου ἐξηγουμένων ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν δι᾽ αὐτῶν

15:13 Μετὰ δὲ τὸ σιγῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἀπεκρίθη Ἰάκωβος λέγων, Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί ἀκούσατέ μου

Note also the silence is directed, in the technical sense in relationship to Paul and Barnabas.
 
There are two seperate ones

15:12 Ἐσίγησεν δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἤκουον Βαρναβᾶ καὶ Παύλου ἐξηγουμένων ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν δι᾽ αὐτῶν

15:13 Μετὰ δὲ τὸ σιγῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἀπεκρίθη Ἰάκωβος λέγων, Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί ἀκούσατέ μου

Note also the silence is directed, in the technical sense in relationship to Paul and Barnabas.
Well if your going to yell at me in a foreign language for two silences’ I respect your interpretation, but respectfully disagree with two seperate silences from the whole assembly after Peter’s speech.

For me the whole assembly “remained” silent during and after Paul and Barnabas confirmation to Peters’ speech.

Can you tell me the importance for two separate silences? If there were two seperate silences, then what caused the break of silence from Peter’s speech after the whole assembly fell silent, before Paul and Barnabas began confirming what Peter revealed from God?
 
They were quiet after Peter and Paul and Barnabas both. The silence is significant to the extent it shows the authority of the men (plural) speaking. The thing to remember in this passage is that Paul and Barnabas said so much, that it was not given as part of the text. Paul always spoke at length when he speaks. Not to mention Barnabas also talks. There is a considerable amount of time. What Peter said took less that two minutes as recorded.
 
The Chrysostom quote, however, is not from some “catena of quotations”, but is found in the full sermon in Migne’s, PG. (See In Illud Hoc Scitote… at khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/John%20Chrysostom_PG%2047-64/)
I haven’t seen anything so far that vitiates this passage from the PG. Hope you al the l enjoy the Chrysostom library. :cool:
I’m finding much the same-- a number of homilies by St. John Chrysostom use language like “the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands [Jesus] committed the keys of heaven.” These are authentic homilies, found in the Patrologica Graeca, the exact same source the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America cites when quoting St. John Chrysostom.

It is one thing to say Catholic and Orthodox Christians disagree about the interpretation of these statements; it is quite another to accuse both Churches of quoting forged homilies.
 
They were quiet after Peter and Paul and Barnabas both. The silence is significant to the extent it shows the authority of the men

(plural) speaking. The thing to remember in this passage is that Paul and Barnabas said so much, that it was not given as part of the text. Paul always spoke at length when he speaks. Not to mention Barnabas also talks. There is a considerable amount of time. What Peter said took less that two minutes as recorded.
IF? the whole assembly was silenced after Peter and Paul and Barnabas spoke, then where do you find a second silence???

If Paul said sooo much? with Barnabas??? wouldnt’ you think their speech would of gotten recorded as inspired of God’s word as Peter’s speech was recorded in Acts 15? where is Pauls great speech? What Peter spoke got recorded as God’s inspired Word of God in the bible under Acts 15 no matter how long one thinks it took?

Where is the second silence again? I missed your second silence somewhere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top