T
Thomas2
Guest
What’s this “It’s your church” ??!? Bait on a hook and an temptation to trash the Church before you leave?
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
All reputable commentaries point to Is 22:22 with reference to the keys. It’s about prime ministerial authority
I’m sorry, but the truth here is that after claiming Peter for itself, contrary to Christ’s canon forbidding a hierarchical Church and contrary to every word of Peter’s in the NT where he never makes such a claim but quite the opposite shows obedience to Christ’s canon, it simply took whatever ‘power type’ references it could find to bolster its own bid for power over the Church.
Write to your bishops! Reclaim your Church!
- Christ set up a kingdom
- Jesus made Peter prime minister under the king with the keys, because that’s what Jesus saw His Father doing for Peter.
- Peter doesn’t have to make the claim of primacy. The second person of the Blessed Trinity said it for him
- And regarding obedience to Christ, scripturally, that complement was given by Paul to the Church of Rome before he visited there. And he said Rome’s obedience was known around the world.
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
I think it’s important to keep in mind one thing: Jesus said in John 20:
I think this element of the apostles ministry is often overlooked. The apostles were to carry on the ministry that Christ started in the incarnation. He was granting them the ability (by His power) to do the very things he did on earth. Heal the sick, raise the dead, preach forgiveness and forgive sins…
The church is still His body, he’s still in control, why would he cease to do the things he did on earth now through His hands and feet the church? I think it’s a valid question.
Code:
"Just as the Father sent me, now I send you"The church is still His body, he’s still in control, why would he cease to do the things he did on earth now through His hands and feet the church? I think it’s a valid question.
Blessings
S
steve_b
Guest
If you check under his name, and then go to his posts, you’ll see why he got the boot. His most recent post on another thread showed his true colors.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I think I follow most of the arguments! Took over 6 hours to read though! :banghead:
Now, I can see the reasonableness of much of what Myrrh says, but I do have a few problems with it:
If the structure of the church relies on Jesus setting an example (washing of feet) to the apostles for authourity,
then is Myrrh implying that Jesus is not superior to the Apostles?
I mean, does he have authority over them and supremacy?
How does Jesus separate sheep from goats without supremacy or something akin to dictatorship?
( More importantly, why does he use the parable which is akin to a threat? )
I seem to be reading a strong argument that Jesus’ way of doing things (his example) is how he wants his bishops/shepherds/etc. to act, but I can not fully see how Myrrhs logic plays out.
I am just genuinely confused on that point.
Also,
The binding and loosing was enjoyed by those who came into Moses seat, and I seem to remember Jesus being very angry with them for not lifting a finger to loose anything.
I also seem to remember Jesus saying in a parable (which the officials took offence at) that the authority would be stripped from them and >> given to another <<
What exactly was the structure of Moses seat?
Was there a primacy of any sort or not?
They certainly were not Pagans or Gentiles, and yet Jesus also says of them something like:
Do as they say, and not as they do.
Jesus supported their < dictation > while their office remained,
and rather than abolish their office, he was going to give it away.
It is clear that Jesus did not want his authority used to make a show (vanity) of ruling over others, but it is not at all clear that Jesus absolutely forbade the exercise of one bishop ruling over another (at least when neccessary).
I don’t see any logical problem with the Petrine office enjoying the same privelege over other bishops, that the bishops enjoy over their own flocks.
Now, I can see the reasonableness of much of what Myrrh says, but I do have a few problems with it:
If the structure of the church relies on Jesus setting an example (washing of feet) to the apostles for authourity,
then is Myrrh implying that Jesus is not superior to the Apostles?
I mean, does he have authority over them and supremacy?
How does Jesus separate sheep from goats without supremacy or something akin to dictatorship?
( More importantly, why does he use the parable which is akin to a threat? )
I seem to be reading a strong argument that Jesus’ way of doing things (his example) is how he wants his bishops/shepherds/etc. to act, but I can not fully see how Myrrhs logic plays out.
I am just genuinely confused on that point.
Also,
The binding and loosing was enjoyed by those who came into Moses seat, and I seem to remember Jesus being very angry with them for not lifting a finger to loose anything.
I also seem to remember Jesus saying in a parable (which the officials took offence at) that the authority would be stripped from them and >> given to another <<
What exactly was the structure of Moses seat?
Was there a primacy of any sort or not?
They certainly were not Pagans or Gentiles, and yet Jesus also says of them something like:
Do as they say, and not as they do.
Jesus supported their < dictation > while their office remained,
and rather than abolish their office, he was going to give it away.
It is clear that Jesus did not want his authority used to make a show (vanity) of ruling over others, but it is not at all clear that Jesus absolutely forbade the exercise of one bishop ruling over another (at least when neccessary).
I don’t see any logical problem with the Petrine office enjoying the same privelege over other bishops, that the bishops enjoy over their own flocks.
C
Charbrah
Guest
I read about the false decretals during Pope Nicholas I papacy, and the historian Carrol contends that the Papacy was already established and accepted by the universal Church. I learned that the Papacy has had troubles over the past two millenia, yet the holy Spirit has protected the office and the Pope’s the whole time. I will read more.
The key to the kingdom or the keys to the kingdom–same thing. The keys represented stewardship, Prime Minister, Majordomo. This is Jesus’ Church, Jesus’ kingdom, Jesus’ heirarchy.
The key to the kingdom or the keys to the kingdom–same thing. The keys represented stewardship, Prime Minister, Majordomo. This is Jesus’ Church, Jesus’ kingdom, Jesus’ heirarchy.
M
Myhrr
Guest
steve b:
When Constantinople was given equal honour with Rome it really should have been given first because Rome was only given first honour at Nicaea because it was the capital of the vast Roman Empire, not for any other reason.
However, it’s a complicated story, for that you’ll need to look to the interest the Vatican has had in Constantinople since the Anglican Church’s interference in its internal affairs around the 1920’s. Look up Metaxakis. The Vatican taking advantage of the disarray created by Metaxakis moved in and began influencing the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Why? Because canonically Constantinople is EQUAL in honour to Rome and if it could get a toe hold there it would have a stepping stone out of its mess built on the false claim of petrine primacy.
This influence has created a great mess in the Orthodox Church, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have been trying to change their authority to be as Rome’s, over bishops. There’s even an official history on the EP site which says the EP is the supreme authority over the Orthodox Churches, that’s the next thing he wants. At the moment all the new converts in the West are being taught that canonicity means being in communion with the EP - totally false and not Orthodox; there are some fighting back, the Greek Orthodox Church in America’s Laity organisation (priests and non-clergy) are taking Bartholomew to court for interfering in their Church’s covenant, he’s on trial in Instanbul for interfering in Bulgaria.
There’s rather a lot going on politically at the moment. The lifting of the anathemas of 1054 and the education of Patriarch Bartholomew at the Vatican are part of the same campaign to destabilise the Orthodox Church so it can achieve its interim stepping stone, dividing up the Church between Constantinople and Rome.
continued
The capital of the Roman empire moved to Constantinople, Rome became** an insignificant village** - everything of any value was moved to Constantinople to make it the Second Rome. Can you picture that?
When Constantinople was given equal honour with Rome it really should have been given first because Rome was only given first honour at Nicaea because it was the capital of the vast Roman Empire, not for any other reason.
Because, the position the different sees had was purely in terms of their importance in the ROMAN EMPIRE! Not the Church. Jurisdictions are for administrative convenience.
The Pope is looking for a way out. It already knows that its history is very well known and it cannot keep up the pretence much longer.
However, it’s a complicated story, for that you’ll need to look to the interest the Vatican has had in Constantinople since the Anglican Church’s interference in its internal affairs around the 1920’s. Look up Metaxakis. The Vatican taking advantage of the disarray created by Metaxakis moved in and began influencing the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Why? Because canonically Constantinople is EQUAL in honour to Rome and if it could get a toe hold there it would have a stepping stone out of its mess built on the false claim of petrine primacy.
This influence has created a great mess in the Orthodox Church, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have been trying to change their authority to be as Rome’s, over bishops. There’s even an official history on the EP site which says the EP is the supreme authority over the Orthodox Churches, that’s the next thing he wants. At the moment all the new converts in the West are being taught that canonicity means being in communion with the EP - totally false and not Orthodox; there are some fighting back, the Greek Orthodox Church in America’s Laity organisation (priests and non-clergy) are taking Bartholomew to court for interfering in their Church’s covenant, he’s on trial in Instanbul for interfering in Bulgaria.
There’s rather a lot going on politically at the moment. The lifting of the anathemas of 1054 and the education of Patriarch Bartholomew at the Vatican are part of the same campaign to destabilise the Orthodox Church so it can achieve its interim stepping stone, dividing up the Church between Constantinople and Rome.
continued
M
Myhrr
Guest
Continued to Steve b
**
All the other Patriarchates are still here too…
Peter is a little stone, the Church is built on Christ the Messiah, Son of the Living God.
Rome is the presider of the Church in its own area which a) does not include any of the other patriarchates, b) and which is the capital city of the vast Roman Empire. Just as Cyprian speaks of presiding in his own area.
**
Sorry, can’t get rid of all the bold.
**
…or what? If the going gets tough be like Peter, put you trust in Christ…
Do you know what I’m referring to when I say ‘Christ’s first canon’?
All the other Patriarchates are still here too…
Peter is a little stone, the Church is built on Christ the Messiah, Son of the Living God.
among all the other churches he mentions and writes to. And we see the exercise of authority*** during apostolic times***.of Rome to a church in another country. So as we read the chronology of thought, Rome is synonimous with Peter’s chair.
Rome is the presider of the Church in its own area which a) does not include any of the other patriarchates, b) and which is the capital city of the vast Roman Empire. Just as Cyprian speaks of presiding in his own area.
**
Sorry, can’t get rid of all the bold.
C
Charbrah
Guest
Myhrr, are you Anglican? What are you? What are you arguing for? Peter is the Rock, and the Church that Christ built upon Peter is still here, 2000 years later, still providing unity to Christ’s flock and feeding the Sheep with the Body of Christ.
The Keys–Myhrr. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. It is right there in Scripture, and the keys meant Prime Minster, Prime Steward of the Kingdom, of the Church. Jesus is and always will be King, and Mother Mary will always be the Queen Mother, and the office of St. Peter will always be the Prime Minister with the keys of Jesus’ kingdom.
The Keys–Myhrr. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. It is right there in Scripture, and the keys meant Prime Minster, Prime Steward of the Kingdom, of the Church. Jesus is and always will be King, and Mother Mary will always be the Queen Mother, and the office of St. Peter will always be the Prime Minister with the keys of Jesus’ kingdom.
M
Myhrr
Guest
Continued to Steve b
It hasn’t claimed it because there was nothing to claim. Rome made it up. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
Peter is a little stone, the Church is built on Christ the Messiah, Son of the Living God.
All the other Patriarchates are still here too…
…ever thought it might not be referring to you?
It did not preside over, did not have jurisdiction over any of the other patriarchates.
Why don’t you actually take a look at how the other Church’s are organised? If Peter had any real authority over the other Apostles it would have been a different organisation right from the beginning and obvious to everyone. And, Antioch would have claimed it.
It hasn’t claimed it because there was nothing to claim. Rome made it up. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
There were more than 12 Apostles, + 70, + more and that’s not including the WOMEN Apostles like St Mary Magdalene Equal-to-the-Apostles and St Photini Equal-to-the-Apostles (the Samaritan woman at the well).
Peter is a little stone, the Church is built on Christ the Messiah, Son of the Living God.
All the other Patriarchates are still here too…
…ever thought it might not be referring to you?
Rome is the presider of the Church in its own area. Just as Cyprian speaks of presiding in his own area and its area is the capital of the vast Roman Empire.
It did not preside over, did not have jurisdiction over any of the other patriarchates.
C
Charbrah
Guest
Myhrr, what are you arguing for?
M
Myhrr
Guest
Code:
steve b said:
Christ’s First Canon
In Context of Church Organisation
biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?search=GENTILE+LORDS&SearchType=AND&version=KJV&restrict=Gospels&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0&x=14&y=7
Originally Posted by Firmilian2nd trump.
Romans 16:
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Whose feet will God crush Satan under? The Church of Rome because it’s the chair of Peter. Mt 16:18…
I hope the day comes soon.
3. But let these things which were done by Stephen be passed by for the present, lest, while we remember his audacity and pride, we bring a more lasting sadness on ourselves from the things that he has wickedly done.7 And knowing, concerning you, that you have settled this matter, concerning which there is now a question, according to the rule of truth and the wisdom of Christ; we have exulted with great joy, and have given God thanks that we have found in brethren placed at such a distance such a unanimity of faith and truth with us.
C
Charbrah
Guest
I still am not certain what Myhrr is arguing for, and I am not certain that Myhrr knows what he is arguing for. Myhrr might be arguing that there is no visible head of the visible Church. Myhrr might be arguing that Christ is the only head of the visible and invisible Church. If so, what are the implications for the Church without a visible head? I think we have witnessed the consequences of denying the visible head of the visible Church–disorder. Praise God for knowing our weakness and establishing a visible head through which Christ’s as the invisible head can govern the Church.
Myhrr, do you even know what you are arguing for? Please tell us.
Myhrr, do you even know what you are arguing for? Please tell us.
M
Myhrr
Guest
I’m arguing for truth here.
You say the consequences of not having a visible head is disorder?
The disorder starts every time someone or some decide that they want to be the visible head, to impose their rule. Look to the history of the Church for the disorder that has caused. Where is the good order in the violence used time after time after time against those that disagreed with the ‘Church with a visible head’?
Christ’s First Canon on the ecclesiology of the Church was specific - not to exercise authority over another. Simple.
Rome developed papacy independent of the rest of the Church and *every *time it exercised its authority over others it was resisted with the truth. Christ did not set up a hierarchical Church.
The bishops were not ‘more equal than the others’ -that’s dictatorship.
Christ made it clear, even ‘benign’ dictatorship is dictatorship and against his express order.
Firmilian called Stephen audacious and a judas for contending that he had ‘petrine authority’. The Church in Britain said it had never heard of such a thing when Rome tried to impose authority over it. They had the traditions of St John, but Rome over the next centuries did everything it could to destroy that, until finally in 1066 it came in behind an army and killed all those bishops and priests and people who wouldn’t submit to its authority. Do you want the rest of the history of Rome’s creation of chaos wherever it went? Take a look at Lithuania which it converted by sword and then didn’t give them any rights at all, made them second class people.
Why do you think there is all this disorder in the Church now? The Moscow Patriarch wants to rule the Church and has used violence against those that have opposed him, the Ecumenical Patriarch has used violence against those that oppose him, the Pope has used violence against those that oppose him. Why are we arguing here? Because they have created disorder. The history of the Church stinks everytime someone wants to be head of the Church in place of Christ.
**Mark 10
**41 And when the ten [including Peter] heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
42 But Jesus called them [all] to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
**Luke 22
**24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
So, I did understand the problem rightly.
Mark 10: 45:
So it is that the Son of Man did not come to have service done to him; he came to serve others…
Luke 22: 27
Tell me, which is greater, the man who sits at table, or the man who serves him? Surely the man who sits at table; yet I am here among you as your servant.
In heaven, Jesus will STILL hold all of creation in existence.
Jesus is still a servant, for if he quits we perish.
Even of the sabbath, Jesus says that the Father is working and so am I. ( John 5:17 ).
And yet, Jesus commands, Jesus bears rule. Every knee must bow.
The passages you are quoting show too much.
If I take them in the sense you are proposing, then Jesus is not able to seperate the goats from the lambs. He is also not able to rule his own bishops. His example is the reason that the apostles are to follow this rule.
Notice, when Jesus attempts to wash Peters feet, at the last supper, Peter is horrified that Jesus would stoop that low.
But Jesus, rather that saying, O.K. Peter thats fine, your an apostle, make your own choice: Jesus levels a threat at him.
If I do not wash your feet you will have no companionship…
(John 13:8)
Jesus uses his authority in the very example of sevice to FORCE Peter to submit to being washed.
These passages are not a command from a hypocritical superior, it was an example of how God works from all eternity.
Now, I can admit that some popes might be justly condemned for transgressing Christs ‘canon’ as you call it. But it is not a transgression for one bishop to rule over another, anymore than for Jesus himself to threaten Peter over the feet washing.
:yup:
Mark 10: 45:
So it is that the Son of Man did not come to have service done to him; he came to serve others…
Luke 22: 27
Tell me, which is greater, the man who sits at table, or the man who serves him? Surely the man who sits at table; yet I am here among you as your servant.
In heaven, Jesus will STILL hold all of creation in existence.
Jesus is still a servant, for if he quits we perish.
Even of the sabbath, Jesus says that the Father is working and so am I. ( John 5:17 ).
And yet, Jesus commands, Jesus bears rule. Every knee must bow.
The passages you are quoting show too much.
If I take them in the sense you are proposing, then Jesus is not able to seperate the goats from the lambs. He is also not able to rule his own bishops. His example is the reason that the apostles are to follow this rule.
Notice, when Jesus attempts to wash Peters feet, at the last supper, Peter is horrified that Jesus would stoop that low.
But Jesus, rather that saying, O.K. Peter thats fine, your an apostle, make your own choice: Jesus levels a threat at him.
If I do not wash your feet you will have no companionship…
(John 13:8)
Jesus uses his authority in the very example of sevice to FORCE Peter to submit to being washed.
These passages are not a command from a hypocritical superior, it was an example of how God works from all eternity.
Now, I can admit that some popes might be justly condemned for transgressing Christs ‘canon’ as you call it. But it is not a transgression for one bishop to rule over another, anymore than for Jesus himself to threaten Peter over the feet washing.
:yup:
C
Charbrah
Guest
Myhrr, what is the truth according to you? How do you interpret scripture? Do you receive the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist? If you do, where? From what denomination? I hope that we are all arguing for the Truth. You are correct to say that people have resisted Petrine authority and claims from the beginning, and those that have resisted are called “heretics”–which means those who have separated themselves from the universal Church with Christ as the King and Peter and his successors as the Prime Minister. I think you have to ask yourself the question, ‘am I a heretic?’ Perhaps you think that Catholics are heretical. The history of the Church has always had accusations of heresy thrown around. What does it mean to be a heretic? what is the Universal Church? Christ is the head, on that much I think we agree, yet you would wish to say that no one in the Church has authority over anyone else. Then what about all of the different interpretations of scripture?–John 6 is one of the most important scriptural passages with different interpretations. I think that you minunderstand what “authority” means. From what you say, “authority” seems to have the same meaning as “tryanny” and “oppression.” Jesus has authority over us, and I doubt that you would call Christ a tyrant and oppressor. The Pope is the servant of the servants of the Lord. And I think I am on the right side of history in my belief that the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, has always had authority ever since the Church was founded. Do you belive in Sola Scriptura? What denomination, assembly, etc…do you belong to? I have gotten the impression that you are Anglican. Are you an Anglican?
C
Charbrah
Guest
Myhrr–We are both arguing for the Truth, and we are both arguing to justify our beliefs. You believe what you believe, and you want to have justified beliefs, I believe what I believe, and I want my beliefs to be justified. You have a different interpretation of Matthew 16 than I. If I am right, your some of your beliefs would not be justified, and you would probably have to become a Roman Catholic. If you are right, what would I do? I still need to be taught authoritatively about scripture? What Bishop should I accept as my authoritative teacher? What Bishop do you currently accept as your AUTHORITATIVE shepherd and teacher, and what Church does He or She belong to?
R
RBushlow
Guest
T
Thomas2
Guest
Look you guys n gals,
Do you really think that the disciples argued back and forth, back and forth, back and forth for very long while Jesus waited for them to make up their minds if they would continuing following Him after He named Simon Cepha? Do you know how silly it is to argue with God’s Will? Give it up and live rightly ordered lives.
Peace and all good,
Thomas2
Do you really think that the disciples argued back and forth, back and forth, back and forth for very long while Jesus waited for them to make up their minds if they would continuing following Him after He named Simon Cepha? Do you know how silly it is to argue with God’s Will? Give it up and live rightly ordered lives.
Peace and all good,
Thomas2
M
Myhrr
Guest
Huiou Theou:
As you give it Jesus uses his authority of *example *to force compliance to his authority, but he doesn’t demand subordination - his whole teaching is on the dignity of the individual, to have respect for each and every one.
An interesting example he gives is turning the other cheek; the setting is of a superior giving a back-handed slap to an inferior, but by turning the other cheek this action becomes impossible, the superior would have to resort to punching and that forces him to confront the inferior as an equal.
To demand or claim obedience is contrary to Christ’s teaching and even his first canon on the ecclesiology of His Church to sort out the ego trips was a statement and explanation of the rule.
It couldn’t be more clear in this example, it will not be so among you to be superior to anyone, even under the pretext of beneficience as the Gentile lords practice it, the pretence to superiority by claiming it’s being done for the good of the inferior for their best interests.
There’s a term coined in recent years in England that describes this aspect, whenever the powers that be forget they’re the servants of equals and treat the people as children they’re called the Nanny State. Remember Christ accorded everyone the same status as himself, whatever you do to the least, child or adult.
But back to the bishops, the setting of this rule was when the Apostles were arguing for powers greater than the others and all the others including Peter were deeply offended, angry.
If there was ever a time for Christ to have made it clear that Peter had authority *over the others *this would have been it. But he didn’t because his teaching is the opposite of this.
There’s other interesting questions here and in your first post that I’ve wanted to reply to but needed to check first, still haven’t got around to it.
Hi Huiou Theou, it’s been on my mind that I didn’t respond to you here and also to your earlier post.
As you give it Jesus uses his authority of *example *to force compliance to his authority, but he doesn’t demand subordination - his whole teaching is on the dignity of the individual, to have respect for each and every one.
An interesting example he gives is turning the other cheek; the setting is of a superior giving a back-handed slap to an inferior, but by turning the other cheek this action becomes impossible, the superior would have to resort to punching and that forces him to confront the inferior as an equal.
To demand or claim obedience is contrary to Christ’s teaching and even his first canon on the ecclesiology of His Church to sort out the ego trips was a statement and explanation of the rule.
It couldn’t be more clear in this example, it will not be so among you to be superior to anyone, even under the pretext of beneficience as the Gentile lords practice it, the pretence to superiority by claiming it’s being done for the good of the inferior for their best interests.
There’s a term coined in recent years in England that describes this aspect, whenever the powers that be forget they’re the servants of equals and treat the people as children they’re called the Nanny State. Remember Christ accorded everyone the same status as himself, whatever you do to the least, child or adult.
But back to the bishops, the setting of this rule was when the Apostles were arguing for powers greater than the others and all the others including Peter were deeply offended, angry.
If there was ever a time for Christ to have made it clear that Peter had authority *over the others *this would have been it. But he didn’t because his teaching is the opposite of this.
There’s other interesting questions here and in your first post that I’ve wanted to reply to but needed to check first, still haven’t got around to it.
- Status