Consider yourself corrected.
In a general sense, I have no problem with this. And in many ways, Peter was a rock in Christ’s Church.
Let’s say, then, that you are correct (and I am one Lutheran who believes that it is difficult to separate Peter from his confession of faith). The issue is always for me how Peter is viewed in terms of ecclesiology.
1000% in agreement. Surely if you can’t find it your heart to agree with Rome you should without a doubt be involved in a true Apostolic Church.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!
Seems from reading the past day couple days of posts, which I missed, has bought about a different thinking on the Keys. This appears with Catholics also it seems. Perhaps it was my quick glance instead of deep thought.
Would Catholics agree with this link?
google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm&sa=U&ei=w426TvjCIee-2gWx9MHKBw&ved=0CBYQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEaCmNy9rm0_DlJPB3hFrnXVQr-CQ
or perhaps here.
google.com/url?q=http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp&sa=U&ei=w426TvjCIee-2gWx9MHKBw&ved=0CB0QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGD1Jk3jFUkSN0_6NZCqTKYSSRw-A
Thanks for the info
Peace
Just one Q: Why do you assume that this James is the brother of the Lord and not the son of Zebedee?
John,
Why should any of that matter? St. Paul and St. James called Simon Cephas because that was the name the Lord gave him. His personal appreciation of all that the Lord may have meant by it, or his lack of it has no bearing at all on the actual meaning of it or the fact that the Lord did name him what he did.
What does it matter that Paul said “seemed to be” speaking of the three and their reputation among the believers when the Lord himself had said to Simon thou art Rock?
Or perhaps St. Paul just meant what he said! Even if we (Apostles) or the Angels! John, with all due respect, I think that the difference you’re creating here is artificial.
No, he could not- he was definitely an inside infallible authority. I must say John, (with respect) your interpretations of scripture are more than just a stretch- you seem to make them say what they simply do not say.
Thank you, you confirmed my earlier point that James remains a topic of debate. If your James is not the James the Greater, **then you believe him to be James the Lesser or “the younger” (see Mk 15:40) **the “Son of Alphaeus” (see Mt. 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 5; and Acts 1:13). Your James is also identified as the son of Mary wife of Clopas (see Jn. 19:25). Who came also from Nazareth related to the Judah tribes of Jesus called by Semitic understanding as a “brother of Jesus” Mt. 13:55, Mk 6:3, Gal. 1:19).
Scripture attests Peter walking on water, raising the dead and then foretelling the death of Ananias and Sapphira because of their deception before Peter. Did James do any of these works? This is never to belittle this great Saint, but to reveal Peter served the Whole church while James served the church in Jerusalem.
I find no disagreement with this;
I agree James played a very important role in the infant Church, no one is doubting this one bit. All the apostles role was very significant to the growth of the Church.
Paul’s ministry was evangelizing the Gentiles and all others in between including Jews and staying alive to complete his race. Peter’s role begins at replacing Judas with another disciple “Mathias”, then preaching to all the Jews in Jerusalem and baptizing the thousands there. Peter is recorded hearing from heaven, binding and loosing “Ananias” before the church, raising the dead, healing the sick and Paul visits with Peter alone to confer his vocation from Jesus and teachings to be from God, when James and all other Jews feared Paul a persecutor of the church.
Keeping in mind that Simon’s confession and his new name Rock, are not mutually exclusive. Catholic church believes both but if you are now going exclusively with the following, that’s cool brother?
Do you embrace the following:
Placed in the context of the first century, Paul writes to the Galatians 14 years later and approximately 11 years after the council of Jerusalem. Placing a character of submissiveness on Paul? who is proven to be a zealot not only for the Law at one time but now one who is willing to die for Christ making him a “fundamental extremist Christian” who shows no character of submissiveness to anyone except Jesus and the Church which Paul learns the lesson is “the body of Christ”.
I agree, but let us look at the whole of scripture; Peter had seen and heard from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the Church, so Peter never teaches or preaches another Gospel. The bishop of Jerusalem however is James who’s Jewish converts are placing a burden on the Gentile converts. Paul places a curse on these. Thus a council and letters from this council circulates informing the councils decision followed by disciplines from James to his Jewish converts, Paul disciplines his Gentile converts much differently than James. Peter never speaks of local disciplines, only what God has revealed to the church.
I agree, what you state here is never Catholic doctrine nor is it ever Christian faith. Someone is decieving you on matters of infallibility and the Church being the body of Christ and Jesus our head. Peter never operates outside of revealed teachings from Jesus Christ and Sacred Tradition, these protect Peter along with the Holy Spirit when he binds and looses on earth Jesus binds and looses in heaven.
In that verse (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) only two men were mentioned by name Cephas and James. Just like Cephas, everyone knew who you were most likely referring to when you simply said “James”. St Paul referred to James several times just as “James” and only once did he add “James, the brother of the Lord”. Of the 12 apostles there were 2 that had the name James, so who among those named “James” is most likely to be the one that would be the one that all knew you meant if you simply said “James”? I have never read how this is a controversy, all seem to say this was James, bishop of Jerusalem.
You are right, I got the two mixed up, oops!
Ok, disregard what I said if it seems too much of a stretch. But, if you care to, consider this short comparison:I must say John, (with respect) your interpretations of scripture are more than just a stretch- you seem to make them say what they simply do not say.
Peace!
I’m pretty sure I can get bible verses where James son of Zebedee was referred to simply as James. There has to be some other basis for making that assumption other than he said “James”. Otherwise then your exegesis necessarily begins with assumptions about the text and is not a true exegesis at all.
I’m sure there were not 30, 40, 50, 70 Apostles! The 12 are Apostles plus st. Paul. The twelve include 2 James’- son of Zebedee and son of Alpheus, James the Greater and the lesser. Catholicism identifies James the lesser with the Lord’s brother due to many factors. Will post the relevant new advent page in my next post. Nowhere are the 70 called Apostles in any capacity- we can’t just keep make stuff up to fit our theologies, John. Is their any reference for calling the 70 Apostles?
I agree John- And the way we sort between myth and tradition is to look for support in patristic teaching, that which has zero support is myth and is why the book is not authoritative.
In the East, the 70 (sometimes 72, it depends on the bible you are using) Disciples are usually known as the 70 Apostles. Barnabas, Luke the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, Philip the Evangelist, St. Stephen (the first martyr), Timothy and Titus are all famous members of the 70/72 Disciples/Apostles.