Petra and Petros...?

[jlhargus]

No, but Holy Tradition does say that. Surly it must be the same in the Latin Church as it is in all the Eastern Churches, when a synod of bishops is held it is not over until the one who is chief among them declares it to be so. The way bishops in the church relate to each other in counsel is based on customs that have been passed down to us from the apostles.

JL: My point was scripture does not say James or anyone else declares the council closed.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon,

My understanding of the universal jurisdiction of St. Peter comes from what follows the “upon this rock…I will build.”

• Christ says I will you keys to the Kingdom. And whatever you bind/loose is bound/loosed in heaven.
• In St. John’s gospel, Our Lord entrusts all his flock to St. Peter asks “Simon bar Jonah, do you love me more than these?” Then, twice he asks “SbJ, Do you love me?” Peter says he does, Christ answers: Feed my sheep, tend/take care of my sheep, feed my lambs".

It’s clear to me that St. Peter’s office in the church is very much universal.
That’s also my understanding. But does it make sense to imagine that Christ built his house upon a weak foundation?

Peace!

And peace also with you.

I would never think that the apostles would be a weak foundation, as they too stood on the rock, the Christ the son of the living God.

But even what you say here does not imply what we know see as the CC claim regarding the pope.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

JL: In Matthew I would say Christ is elluding to Solomon a wise man, who builds God’s house (Temple) on rock. I would say it mirrors Christ, the ultimate wise man, who is building God’s house (Temple) on rock=Peter. And the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

Hi JL,
I see you all the time, and our paths rarely cross, but its always good when they do.

On the last line, . And even if one equates Peter to the rock, and not just his confession of faith, this too, based on my limited knowledge of the early councils, doesn’t translate to the role the papacy now holds for itself. Is Peter a vital, perhaps even central figure in the foundation of the Church? No denying it.

Jon

 

[joe370]

And peace also with you.

I would never think that the apostles would be a weak foundation, as they too stood on the rock, the Christ the son of the living God.

But even what you say here does not imply what we know see as the CC claim regarding the pope.

Jon

Jon, I agree with you about Jesus! I know of no one who does not. Leaving Simon’s profession of faith out of it for just a second: do you also believe that Jesus built His church on Peter (visible rock as opposed to Jesus Who Is the invisible Divine Rock) - which is perhaps why the gates of hell will never prevail …?

 

[Marybeloved]

Jon, I agree with you about Jesus! I know of no one who does not. Leaving Simon’s profession of faith out of it for just a second: do you also believe that Jesus built His church on Peter (visible rock as opposed to Jesus Who Is the invisible Divine Rock) - which is perhaps why the gates of hell will never prevail …?

I think the gates of hell will never prevail because Jesus guarantees the church he builds on Peter against it (Hades and its gates) and because God the Holy Spirit lives in the Church and rules her from within, not because Peter is Rock. Or because Christ is builder and the Holy Spirit invisible ruler, and it’s God the father that has chosen St. Peter as rock of the Church. IOW- The Blessed Trinity is the reason.

Peace!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jon,

Hi JL,
I see you all the time, and our paths rarely cross, but its always good when they do.

On the last line, . And even if one equates Peter to the rock, and not just his confession of faith, this too, based on my limited knowledge of the early councils, doesn’t translate to the role the papacy now holds for itself. Is Peter a vital, perhaps even central figure in the foundation of the Church? No denying it.

This might help, from another thread:

Trebor135:

A large part of the Catholic claim about the position of the Pope comes from the claim that Peter is the rock upon which Christ builds his Church as per Matthew 16:18. … ome Catholic apologists will say that we can’t distinguish between Peter’s confession and Peter himself. This makes no sense at all, because his confession is one that every Christian confesses, it is not unique to Peter. But in any case, it is the Fathers themselves who clearly distinguish between Peter and his confession, so we need not speculate on this:

Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was NOT OF THE PERSON but of the faith of St Peter that is was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when he called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavor then thyself to be a rock - thy rock is thy faith and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shall be in the Church, for the Church is build upon the rock" ~St Ambrose, On the Incarnation.

“Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter.” ~St Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5

mardukm:

This comment represents a caricature of the Catholic position. The notion of “Peter” in general Catholic understanding does not refer to a person per se, but to a charism, a charism based on a promise of Christ Himself to His Church. The notion of “Peter” in Catholic understanding goes beyond the person. That is why the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 explained, in relation to the papal infallibility, that it is not normatively regarded as “personal,” but only in a very limited sense that it is utilized by a certain person (the bishop of Rome) WHEN and ONLY WHEN he is performing a certain God-established function in the Church. It is NOT attached to the person who holds the office, but to the office itself. When Catholics say that “Peter is the Rock,” we are not saying that Simon is the Rock. Rather, we are referring to a certain God-protected charism that attaches to a particular office/role in the Church established by Christ for the edification of His Church. That is the significance of why our Lord changed Simon’s name to Peter. “Peter” is something beyond Simon that is connected to something more than the person who is Simon.

It is true that Catholic apologists will sometimes coin the phrase “the person of Peter,” but it should be noted that this is simply and always for the purpose of distinguishing the “person of Peter” from (merely) “the person of Simon.” To repeat, in the Catholic understanding, the “person of Peter” does not refer to a mere person, but to a quality pre-eminently and intimately related to the Rock (Petra) Who is Christ.

I interpret your comments as a denial of Sacramental/Incarnational theology (correct me if I’m wrong). God works through the Church. PERIOD. That Christ changed Simon’s name to Rock has a very deep significance, for He is conferring on Simon a special Grace intimately attached to His (Jesus’) own quality as the Rock of the Church.

I don’t understand the dichotomy placed by many between Peter as Rock, Peter’s Faith as Rock and Jesus as Rock. They are inseparably related, and that should be plainly obvious to anyone who adheres to Sacramental/Incarnational theology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

John it was you who said that James always appears before Cephas- In another post you capitalized it- ALWAYS. You’re claiming a pattern- I’m asking where else? Surely you can’t say “always” while speaking of a single incidence? I just asked you to show me where else that happened for it to be always. It’s not fair for you to ask me to disprove an assertion you’ve put forward when I ask for proof .

You are right, and I am wrong on this one. I concede that there is only this one listing where James is before Peter, because in no other place is James listed with Peter at all, either before or after.

In my memory I thought there were other such listings but I remembered wrong. I did say “ALWAYS”, but in a way I was right still because if there is only one listing where James is listed with apostles that that one time is still “always”.

I think the reason is that this was not a listing of apostles, but rather a list of those whom St Paul said were “pillars”, or rather seemed to be pillars. James was never called an apostle so the listing contains two apostles and a bishop. The bishop is listed first, I still maintain, because this bishop was overseer of the whole Church, including the apostles.

Give us just one or two fathers who recognized his rule over the whole church-even from his own see. Surely the fathers must have something to say about the ruler of the whole church if it was indeed St. James?

No, I can’t give you any such quote from any Church Father because none of them taught that anyone other than St Peter had universal jurisdiction. This is not a East vs West issue. When we were all one Church all churches acknowledged Rome as the Chief and believed that it was because of St Peter that Rome was Chief. I believe that St James’s leadership of the whole Church was indeed taught by those in the Jewish party of the Church and also most likely the Samaritan party of the Church too. But they are not around any more to tell us of such things and I believe that most of what their “Church Fathers” had to say were destroyed. So all I have in support of this is from scripture plus one verse from the so-called Gospel of Thomas. (BTW, it is said that the Gospel of Thomas was Gnostic, but what advantage would the Gnostic’s have by saying that James was head of the Church? How would such a claim help them advance Gnosticism?)

If you wish to discredit me on this matter because I cannot use any Church Father to support this matter feel free to do so. But realize too that really the teaching that St Peter is head of the Church because of the Keys is likewise really a scripture-only teaching. Yes Church Fathers speak of it but they do so only the way we can, that is by quoting the same scripture verses that we can quote and telling us what those verses mean. None of the Church Fathers ever say that this was the tradition of the Church form the beginning that was passed down to us from the Apostles.

As I said before I think that the story of St Peter coming to Rome etc. was all made up! I don’t think any Church leader made the stories up, but rather others made them up and the leaders just didn’t correct the stories because they helped Rome become established in the minds of many as the greatest pillar of orthodoxy in the world. Do the ends justify the means? Not for me to say.

Come on, John- headship of the universal church, rule over the brethren, ruler of the whole world, to him the flock is entrusted, the whole world is entrusted…Doesn’t look like St. Chrysostom has any confusion at all about Peter ruling the whole church.
I disagree because there’s just no evidence for it. Y’all are always accusing us of exaggerating Rome’s place in the early church- yet you do it here with St. James. If not, just reference some fathers who held to this idea.

Can’t do it, so may I just advise you to continue to believe as you do. I’m sure that what you believe helps motivate you to be a better Christian, so don’t let the likes of me be a distraction for you.

I’m sorry I employed the word insane- but let me clarify that I didn’t mean you are insane.

That’s ok. Maybe I am insane, when I see that there can no good come of this should I convince anybody.

Sometimes these debates get your blood boiling and you hurry to reply w/out taking a breath!

Seeing that this is how what what I said effects you I should say I’m sorry.

I don’t believe this is as wide a belief as that, at least not among apostolic churches.

Why then is the Epistle of St James so often referred to as a “catholic” epistle if at least a great many Christian think that this bishop had universal authority?

Grace & Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

When Paul lists James before Cephas and John in Galatians, it is because Paul is visiting the first Church who the bishop happens to be James. Peter had already baptized thousands there, James became bishop to over see the Church Peter had built in Jerusalem. Just as Peter did in Antioch, later sends Mark to Egypt then back to Rome.

Ok, that’s plausible.

**Your James again becomes debatable. When Peter’s position is clearly recorded and stated by Jesus himself. Here is the test. Who would carry more weight? the Gospel writers recording Jesus building His church upon Peter and giving Peter authority in the keys of heaven on earth and shepherding His flock? and who witnessed Jesus doing and recorded Jesus sayings.

Or an epistle later written to the Gentile Galatian church of an apostle who later was called after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus sent out to the Gentiles by a converted Pharisee Jew who persecuted the Church by the name Saul now named Paul?**

Not sure why one needs to carry more weight than the other, unless they contradict each other, then you would have to accept one and reject the other, but of course what Jesus said would carry more weight than what Paul said.

Paul here is teaching and confirming with the Galatians that the Jewish convert Bishop of Jerusalem James, which at first glance carries with it lot of weight on the surface to conclude, that Paul is right in not having his Gentile converts be circumcised, because James the bishop of Jerusalem Peter and John “who were reputed to be pillars” agreed with Pauls teachings and gave him their blessings. This reveals Pauls early distance from the Apostles in the beginning as recognizing only the bishop of Jerusalem who agrees with his preaching, comes from an established apostolic ordained bishop of the first Church in Jerusalem, which probably was well known and respected to the new Church’s being built througout Palastine.

Sounds right to me!

In summary I am not discounting James the bishop of Jerusalems authority over Jewish converts and Gentile converts being burdened by Jewish converts including Pauls evangelized communities such as Galatians. Jesus never builds nor places James in any authoritative position over the whole flock as Jesus relates His office to Peter alone by the 4 Gospel writers.

The epistle of James was written to “the 12 tribes”, not just Jerusalem. Often this epistle is referred to as a “catholic” epistle. Why would James write to the whole church (actually it was to all Jewish people in the Church) if he didn’t hold universal authority? Peter had only sort of a half-universal authority, that is, over all Jewish people in the Church, but only James had real universal authority. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. The counsel of Acts 15 did not issue orders to Gentiles in the Church, but to Jews, that they (the Jewish Christians) not bother the Gentile Christians with matters of the Law, with one important exception, “that they (the Gentiles) abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood”. James showed that his authority was also over the Gentiles by issuing this order to the Gentiles. Only James spoke of what the Gentiles should do at this counsel because only he had universal authority!

There is at least some evidence that St Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, followed these orders from James. For things contaminated by idols Paul speaks to Gentile Christians about this in 1st Corinthians Chapter 8, and for fornication Paul speaks to Gentile Christians about this in 1st Corinthians Chapters 5, 6, and 7. But for the whole of the Law Paul does not teach the Gentiles but instead says, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul [apostle to Gentiles] say unto you [Gentiles], that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Galatians 5:1-3). In contrast St James does not speak to Jews about liberty from the Law, but says to Jews, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)

 

[JohnVIII]

In fact if you are wanting to use a later epistle after the fact Galatians records Paul after recieving his vocation from Jesus, informs the Galatians what he did first to confirm this teaching to be true;

It is from your own Galatians source that records Peter being mentioned before James here in verse 18 which contradicts your theory that James is always mentioned first before Peter.

Galatians 1:15 But when [God], who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleasedk 16to reveal his Son to me,l so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood,* 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia* and then returned to Damascus.

18* Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.m 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles,n only James the brother of the Lord.** 20(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)

I can see how verse 18, if it were in the context of Paul submitting to an authority, would make it sound as if Cephas was more important of an authority than James. But is is not in that context yet, as the point being made by Paul thus far was that he has authority as an apostle directly from Jesus not any man, and to support this he is saying that he didn’t even meet any apostle in person until he had been an apostle for 3 years. Then starting in verse 1 of chapter 2 Paul starts talking about the counsel of Jerusalem where Paul did submit to authority (for the first time!), but starts bu saying that this didn’t happen until another 14 years! So, in mathematical terms Paul only saw one apostle other than himself for 15 days within a window of 6209 days (3+14 years times 365.25 = 6209.25 days) or only 0.241575%, that is less than one quarter of one percent of that time, while all that time Paul was functioning as an apostle with no authority in Jerusalem worried about Paul perhaps being some false teacher or such. Then Paul makes the point that even when it came to the counsel in Jerusalem he when there “because of a revelation” (Gal. 2:2), the point being that no authority in Jerusalem was concerned about Paul’s teaching because they didn’t even send for him to come to this counsel in Jerusalem, but rather he when because God told him to go. The 15 day visit that Paul had with Peter was like one friend visiting with another which implies that they had equivalent authority, not one over the other.

Some hear on this thread have said that the Keys given to Peter were shared with the other apostles, I don’t think this is true, but if it were, could it be said that they were also shared with St Paul since when he was not even a Christian at the time Jesus said “upon this Rock etc…”? Yet St Paul does indeed have equivalent authority to St Peter. Both are apostles and Peter is over all the Jews and Paul is over all the Gentles in the Church. Combined it could be said that they have sort of a universal authority over all Christians, but apart they are limited and equivalent. The matter of the Keys of the Kingdom (“of the Kingdom” rather than “Church”, the phrase “of the Kingdom” typically refers to Jewish Christians) were given to Peter for the Jewish party of the Church.

In Acts 1:6 Jesus was asked, “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” “The Kingdom” to the Church? No, it was the Kingdom to Israel!

Peace!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is at least some evidence that St Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, followed these orders from James. For things contaminated by idols Paul speaks to Gentile Christians about this in 1st Corinthians Chapter 8, and for fornication Paul speaks to Gentile Christians about this in 1st Corinthians Chapters 5, 6, and 7. But for the whole of the Law Paul does not teach the Gentiles but instead says, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul [apostle to Gentiles] say unto you [Gentiles], that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Galatians 5:1-3). In contrast St James does not speak to Jews about liberty from the Law, but says to Jews, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)

**When it comes to the first century Jewish law, Paul was a Pharisee (lawyer) of the Mosaic Law. Your James was a fisherman from Galilee brother of John sons of Zebedee, whom Jesus called “Sons of Boanerges” Sons of Thunder.

You are reaching for straws if you believe James new the Jewish laws more than Paul? Paul had already spoken to Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days after Paul mentions meeting Peter first before he saw no other apostle except James the brother of the Lord**.

Paul already recieved notice from Peter’s revelation of the Gentiles. It was now up to the council of Jerusalem who had the problem of burdening Gentile converts under James its bishop. Peter spoke and all fell silent, followed by Pauls signs and wonders settled the matter for the Jerusalem church under its bishop James to issue a judgement for its community. Because Peter revealed his heavenly vision the councils decision became universal except for James disciplines which Paul discounted among his Gentile converts.

 

[joe370]

I think the gates of hell will never prevail because Jesus guarantees the church he builds on Peter against it (Hades and its gates) and because God the Holy Spirit lives in the Church and rules her from within, not because Peter is Rock. Or because Christ is builder and the Holy Spirit invisible ruler, and it’s God the father that has chosen St. Peter as rock of the Church. IOW- The Blessed Trinity is the reason.

Peace!

Of course. If the church is Jesus’ Mystical Body of which He is the Head and Savior, then no one will be able to destroy it.

 

[joe370]

mardukm;

I don’t understand the dichotomy placed by many between Peter as Rock, Peter’s Faith as Rock and Jesus as Rock. They are inseparably related, and that should be plainly obvious to anyone who adheres to Sacramental/Incarnational theology.

Exactly. There seems to be a tendency by some, not all, to identify the 3 as being mutually exclusive, when in fact all 3 are inseparably related.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hello, John,

I think the reason is that this was not a listing of apostles, but rather a list of those whom St Paul said were “pillars”, or rather seemed to be pillars. James was never called an apostle so the listing contains two apostles and a bishop. The bishop is listed first, I still maintain, because this bishop was overseer of the whole Church, including the apostles.

I understand that there’s a whole debate about who is an Apostle. But the scriptures do call St. James “brother of God” (A very reverent name that you’ve taught me, by the way- I think I’ll honor St. James with it whenever I invoke him; Btw, is it OK to call St. Joseph foster-father/guardian of God and Sts Ann & Joachim grandparents of God- or is that just taking it a tad too far, seeing that there’s no precedent for it in any church? ) Anyway, st. James is called an Apostle- Though I’ll have to look for the exact verses and post them.

Why then is the Epistle of St James so often referred to as a “catholic” epistle if at least a great many Christian think that this bishop had universal authority?

I’m not quite sure what “Catholic epistle” means exactly, will have to check it out. But my first reasoning would be that we have to separate the office of the Blessed Apostles as Apostles and their office as Bishops.

-As Apostles and the instruments of the divine revelation, the office of each one would be universal and totally unrestricted. So Sts. Peter and James and all the others would be as bound to st. Paul’s letters as anyone else, as St. Paul by Peter’s and all the Apostles to St. Peter’s revelation regarding Cornelius and the Gentiles etc etc. So the four gospels and all the canonical letters being letters of divine revelation (scripture) are universal and timeless in their application and have authority to bind everyone’s conscience, being both inspired and inerrant, and public (intended for all humanity forever) regardless of the particular writer.

IOW, no Bishop of Rome after St. Peter or any other Bishop other than the Apostles can just give us new “revelations”- they can only teach the true meaning and the true application of the already divinely revealed truth- So they’re infallible but not inspired.

Peace!

PS- I’ve gotten into trouble before with my pointed posts- I’m trying to learn how to communicate in Apologetics/religious debates & discussions- I appreciate you accepting my apologies.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JohnVIII;8549373] Then starting in verse 1 of chapter 2 Paul starts talking about the counsel of Jerusalem where Paul did submit to authority (for the first time!), but starts bu saying that this didn’t happen until another 14 years! So, in mathematical terms Paul only saw one apostle other than himself for 15 days within a window of 6209 days (3+14 years times 365.25 = 6209.25 days) or only 0.241575%, that is less than one quarter of one percent of that time, while all that time Paul was functioning as an apostle with no authority in Jerusalem worried about Paul perhaps being some false teacher or such

.

Your math needs a little clarification; Paul after 3 years went to Jerusalem to meet/confer with Peter for fifteen days. Paul did not go to Jerusalem to meet with James, Paul only mentions in passing that he did not see any other apostle in Jerusalem except James.

Then! after 14 years after confering with Peter, Paul went to Jerusalem again by revelation. Only to support Peter’s teaching with his signs and wonders which followed Peter’s teachings.

Some hear on this thread have said that the Keys given to Peter were shared with the other apostles, I don’t think this is true, but if it were, could it be said that they were also shared with St Paul since when he was not even a Christian at the time Jesus said “upon this Rock etc…”? Yet St Paul does indeed have equivalent authority to St Peter. Both are apostles and Peter is over all the Jews and Paul is over all the Gentles in the Church. Combined it could be said that they have sort of a universal authority over all Christians, but apart they are limited and equivalent. The matter of the Keys of the Kingdom (“of the Kingdom” rather than “Church”, the phrase “of the Kingdom” typically refers to Jewish Christians) were given to Peter for the Jewish party of the Church.

Some here on this thread cannot make the distinction between Peter’s vocation, James episcopal vocation and Paul’s vocation causing contradictions and confusion with Jesus being the head of the whole Church and Peter the rock Jesus builds His Church upon.

Let me simplify the equation here. Jesus is the Rock revealed in the Old covenant when Paul reveals that Jesus was the “Rock” from which gave the Isrealites water to drink from in the desert.

To wit all the apostles were given the power to forgive sins, to baptize and adminster the ministry of reconciliation throughout the world, not just Jews, and not just Gentiles. To limit an apostle to anyone Jew or Gentile community greatly misses the Gospel message and commisioning of the Church from Jesus.

I can see limiting the local bishops Jurisdiction to his local community but to try and falsify that an apostle was limited to a certain vocation conflicts with the Gospel message of Jesus and commissioning of His apostles to go out to the Jew first which Peter did and then into the whole world, which Peter does and continues to do to this day in the Popes.

The problem I see here is one is trying to pit Peter against Jesus which can never be the case because Jesus promises to be with Peter always. Then confusing Jesus being the corner stone the builders rejected as not being one with the Rock Jesus builds upon Peter as if the two can become separated.

In summary here, all apostolic successors have the power of the keys to be adminstered to the local flock. All apostolic successors united to Peter are Rock. Peter alone with Jesus is Rock and is commissioned by Jesus alone to "bring back is fallen brethren and shepherd the Whole flock universally. A bishop by himself in opposition to unity with Peter and the college of the bishops isolates his flokc from full communion in the body of Christ. No one is disputing a bishops authority in the keys or being built upon Rock in the local Church. It is Jesus himself who gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven universally over the whole Church and those united to Peter in faith remain Rock “unmoved”.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is revealed in scripture that the walls of the Church has 12 foundations built upon the apostles and Jesus is the CORNER STONE of the whole Church. Jesus is the corner stone which holds all the others together first stone to be layed by Jesus is Peter “Rock” who unifies all the other stones, by calling them always back should they fail in faith.

Matthew 21:42* u Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures:
‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’?

In Acts 1:6 Jesus was asked, “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” “The Kingdom” to the Church? No, it was the Kingdom to Israel!

Peace

Here is where One causes confusion from the apostolic doctrine of the kingdom of God. Confusing what the Apostles are thinking from what Jesus is revealing. Our thoughts are not God’s thoughts.

Maybe the following scripture will help clear this up for you;

Revelations 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. **…[for] the old order has passed away.”

5The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”…*

The New Jerusalem.*… “Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”* 10He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.i 11It gleamed with the splendor of God. Its radiance was like that of a precious stone, like jasper, clear as crystal.j 12It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed, [the names] of the twelve tribes of the Israelites. 13There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west.k 14The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.*

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

mardukm;8545935]**The Church is not a monarchy **— much, much less an absolute monarchy. GOVERNANCE OF THE CHURCH IS SHARED BY ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH. This is the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as reflected in the Decrees of Vatican 2. Few people know this, but this teaching was also present at Vatican 1. It was explicitly contained in its Divine Consitution on the Church (De ecclesia), The principle of collegiality AND headship in the Church is of divine institution, according to the Faith of the Catholic Church, and (at least) all the Churches of the Syriac Tradition.

I beg to differ with you that the Catholic Church “is not a monarchy”? She is a monarchy because She has a King of Kings and Lord of Lords as her head Jesus.

The Catholic church is never a monarchy in the secular sense because God’s kingdom does not belong to this world. His body =The Church lives in the world but is not part of the world.

Simply put the mystical body of Christ belongs to her monarch King Jesus who is the head of His Body the Catholic church.

The Pope has the keys to bind and loose. The college of bishops united with the Popes also have universal authority along with infallibility in certain cases. Jesus is the one who built this foundation upon Peter and the apostles in His body as He Jesus is the head “corner stone”.

I don’t think any Catholic united to the Popes since apostolic times ever believes the Popes alone is a monarch king or is above any one else. These false accusations reveal a false understanding of the apostles united to Peter as being one Rock in Jesus Christ.

Vatican I and II clearly define the Popes role in authority united to the college of bishops and the infallibility of the Popes and infallibility of the magisterium united to the Popes. She Never defines the divine authority placed on Peter as making him to be some kind of super human with supreme super human powers, this misunderstanding comes from another gospel being preached, becauses this is never what the Catholic Church ever teaches especailly falsifying that the Popes being is supreme over human beings and other bishops.

**For me nothing has changed in Peter’s ministry as Rock in the Catholic church. The bishop of Rome is first among equals among his brethren, Yet the apostolic successor to Peter’s Chair in the Popes is recognized by both secular powers and religious powers world wide as belonging to the Church Jesus founded upon. Thus when the Popes speak to the world “Peter still speaks”.

Now if this truth reveals envy, jealousy and hate then we know Jesus is with the Popes, because the world hated Jesus and was jealous and envious of Jesus.**

If all others should fail in the Church? Jesus prayed for Peter alone and Peter is commissioned by Jesus to bring back all his fallen brethren, who possesses the keys to the kingdom of heaven on earth which makes him Vicar of Christ our King on earth and the local bishops are vicars of Christ on the local level, when united to Peter the magisterium oversees the whole flock.

Peace be with you

 

[JohnVIII]

Hello, John,I understand that there’s a whole debate about who is an Apostle. But the scriptures do call St. James “brother of God” (A very reverent name that you’ve taught me, by the way- I think I’ll honor St. James with it whenever I invoke him; Btw, is it OK to call St. Joseph foster-father/guardian of God and Sts Ann & Joachim grandparents of God- or is that just taking it a tad too far, seeing that there’s no precedent for it in any church? ) Anyway, st. James is called an Apostle- Though I’ll have to look for the exact verses and post them.

Of course it’s ok, they are all relatives of God through the Virgin Mary. The Divine Liturgy at the end commemorates Sts Joachim and Anna as the “Ancestors of God”.

I’m not quite sure what “Catholic epistle” means exactly, will have to check it out. But my first reasoning would be that we have to separate the office of the Blessed Apostles as Apostles and their office as Bishops.

-As Apostles and the instruments of the divine revelation, the office of each one would be universal and totally unrestricted. So Sts. Peter and James and all the others would be as bound to st. Paul’s letters as anyone else, as St. Paul by Peter’s and all the Apostles to St. Peter’s revelation regarding Cornelius and the Gentiles etc etc. So the four gospels and all the canonical letters being letters of divine revelation (scripture) are universal and timeless in their application and have authority to bind everyone’s conscience, being both inspired and inerrant, and public (intended for all humanity forever) regardless of the particular writer.

Well, that is correct orthodox teaching, but I don’t think I can believe it this way anymore, as I once did. St Paul said that he was called to Gentiles and that St Peter was called to Jews. Spiritually all Christians are one, but I see that there was a division in in regard to gifts and callings. One very special gift was the Keys of the Kingdom which were only refereed to in the Gospel of Matthew, which Gospel was written for the Jews. So, can you see how it all fits together? St Peter, a Jewish calling, with a gift (the Keys) for the Jews, which only Jewish Christians were informed about.

IOW, no Bishop of Rome after St. Peter or any other Bishop other than the Apostles can just give us new “revelations”- they can only teach the true meaning and the true application of the already divinely revealed truth- So they’re infallible but not inspired.

Yes I know this and it is another reason that I do not believe Rome has the Keys. If Rome did she would be able to have revelations if they were needed for the Kingdom (or the Church). Jesus said to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." This was revelation, and I believe it is the Keys.

-Adrian (JohnVIII) - (a fool for Christ, or more likely just a fool)

 

[Marybeloved]

My friend JohnVIII,

I notice you changed your religion description from 96.5% Eastern Orthodox to waning semi-Orthodox…I really feel bad about that, because while from our conversations, I don’t feel you’re on your way to Rome, it looks like you’re also on your way out of Orthodoxy. That makes me sad. Surely you should belong to an Apostolic Church (and faith) for the sacraments at least . I really, really hope that our conversations here haven’t contributed to this (IMO) sad turn of events. Please give both churches a good honest to goodness shot before you leave us.

Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

The New Jerusalem.*… “Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”* 10He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.i 11It gleamed with the splendor of God. Its radiance was like that of a precious stone, like jasper, clear as crystal.j 12It had a massive, high wall, with twelve gates where twelve angels were stationed and on which names were inscribed, [the names] of the twelve tribes of the Israelites. 13There were three gates facing east, three north, three south, and three west.k 14The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.*

The whole thing sounds pretty Jewish to me. If it is a vision of whole Church, or some such thing, then why just the 12 apostles, why was Paul left out?

Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28) - Has Rome ever said which one of the 12 tribes St Peter will judge when he sits on his throne in Rome? I would truly love to know!

 

[JohnVIII]

My friend JohnVIII,

I notice you changed your religion description from 96.5% Eastern Orthodox to waning semi-Orthodox…I really feel bad about that, because while from our conversations, I don’t feel you’re on your way to Rome, it looks like you’re also on your way out of Orthodoxy. That makes me sad. Surely you should belong to an Apostolic Church (and faith) for the sacraments at least . I really, really hope that our conversations here haven’t contributed to this (IMO) sad turn of events. Please give both churches a good honest to goodness shot before you leave us.

Peace!

I have no intention of leaving Holy Orthodoxy. I just think it is not fair to others, especially other Orthodox, here on this forum who may be dialoging on the same thread if I make it out as if Orthodox disagree with each other all the time and don’t all believe the same. My experience is that most all Orthodox do believe the same things. If I believe differently on some primary things It would not be right for me to label myself as “Orthodox”, even if I do attend an Orthodox Church.

God grants us peace!