Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You make an extremely good point. Interesting that Socrates himself agrees:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence.  And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again.  And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable.  They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them.  For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

*(Phaedrus 275)
  • I suppose, then, that the Protestant objection is that the Holy Spirit protects one from misinterpreting the words of Christ, for He said this:
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.”

(John 16:12-14)
This quotation of yours from Plato’s Phaedrus IMHO is a great one !

This seem to have momentous consequences on most protestant mindsets.

As for the scriptural quotation:
  1. Isn’t Jesus adressing His apostles in His “Upper Room speaches” as recorded for us in John’s Gospel ? Isn’t it therefore likely that, far from encouraging every single believer to build from scratch his own Christianity disregarding the witness of the Apostolic Church, the passage provides strong hint that the apostles had a peculiar assistance.
Maybe so that the individual believer could rely on their assistance in the first generation, and their successors’ in the following ones. …
  1. it is our daily experience that the Holy Spirit does not protect individual believers from contradicting each other : otherwise, for one, you would not hear different views on protestant forums and on CAF. 🙂
Bless you Soc.

PS What about objections to points from 1) to 4) in post 37 ?
 
Lets see. He did’nt just say the words, He also acted them out. He took bread blessed it and said This Is My Flesh. Take it and eat it.
So the blessed bread is actually now His flesh. And that is how they will eat His flesh.

Perhaps the Apostle can help clear up any explanations by telling you that the church is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth…
Perhaps he means us to look to the church if we want to see the truth.
My hope is that finding the truth about the Catholic Church will tell me whether it is still the pillar and foundation of truth about which Paul wrote. That’s the purpose of this discussion thread, Thing. Thanks for continuing to help me toward that end!

👍
 
Dear Soc,

those protestant brothers, of course, speak that way about an invisible church.

As you know it was necessary for Reformers to stress this concept of “invisible” church,
since they would not want to jettison the Nicene Creed with its “I believe the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic”. There could be one and catholic church, in their systems, only by postulating its invisibility.

IMHO as an answer to point 5 in post , ie “(5) Where are these ( legitimate) successors ( of the Apostles) in the western world ?”, as referred to the locus of christian legitimate authority, the “small c” catholic invisible church has, for one, a big problem:

an invisible ( ie undetectable) entity, as such is not ( cannot exercise) an authority 🤷.

a third frequent objection is :

“I acknowledge no religious authority but God”.

A catholic FULLY agrees, and this is precisely why all should try to detect where the legitimate ministers of the one authority are. ( which is what the present thread is trying to do, if I get correctly).

I can subscribe your definition of Incarnation. I am looking forward to seeing what follows from this answer. 🙂
P7:

How do you define the word church that Jesus spoke in Matthew?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

🤷
 
This quotation of yours from Plato’s Phaedrus IMHO is a great one !

This seem to have momentous consequences on most protestant mindsets.

As for the scriptural quotation:
  1. Isn’t Jesus adressing His apostles in His “Upper Room speaches” as recorded for us in John’s Gospel ? Isn’t it therefore likely that, far from encouraging every single believer to build from scratch his own Christianity disregarding the witness of the Apostolic Church, the passage provides strong hint that the apostles had a peculiar assistance.
Maybe so that the individual believer could rely on their assistance in the first generation, and their successors’ in the following ones. …
  1. it is our daily experience that the Holy Spirit does not protect individual believers from contradicting each other : otherwise, for one, you would not hear different views on protestant forums and on CAF. 🙂
Bless you Soc.

PS What about objections to points from 1) to 4) in post 37 ?
Yes, Socrates had a lot of memorable things to say.

🙂

And yes, i agree, that the Holy Spirit does not give everyone 100% of the truth 100% of the time. However, Jesus did not say the Spirit would give us the truth, instead He said:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

(John 16:13)
Guiding someone to discover the truth herself is not the same as giving her the truth, i think. I suppose that discovering truth is like hunting for a rare treasure: You have to know where to dig and you sometimes have to dig deep to get at it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
My hope is that finding the truth about the Catholic Church will tell me whether it is still the pillar and foundation of truth about which Paul wrote. That’s the purpose of this discussion thread, Thing. Thanks for continuing to help me toward that end!

👍
Oh thats ok. You’ve taken a step in the right direction now. You now know that St Pauls church is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. And you know that *that *church was in existance between 33 ad and at the very least 60/70 ad. But then, as the Apostles were all one, and St. John was an Apostle, so the church also lasted at least as long as St. John lived, say until 90 ad. St John taught the faith to St. Polycarp and St. Polycarp taught the faith to St. Irenaeus, so the church still existed in 191 ad, (when St. Irenaeus lived), as both of those Saints were Bishops of the Church.
In fact, St Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyon in Gaul (France generally). So the faith was well established by 190 ad, as it had established itself within France. So this Church had Bishops in France, as St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus as Bishop of Lyon.
During his life first as a priest and then as a Bishop St. Irenaeus met and communicated with two Popes, first Pope Eleutherius in 177 ad, and then later with Pope Victor in 190 ad.
Both of St. Irenaeus’ communications with the Popes concerned helping christians in both Gaul and Asia Minor. So the faith of St. Irenaeus existed in France and also in Asia Minor in 190 ad, and this faith of St. Iranaeus and of the christians in France and Asia Minor was also the faith of the Popes in Rome.
 
Oh thats ok. You’ve taken a step in the right direction now. You now know that St Pauls church is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. And you know that *that *church was in existance between 33 ad and at the very least 60/70 ad. But then, as the Apostles were all one, and St. John was an Apostle, so the church also lasted at least as long as St. John lived, say until 90 ad. St John taught the faith to St. Polycarp and St. Polycarp taught the faith to St. Irenaeus, so the church still existed in 191 ad, (when St. Irenaeus lived), as both of those Saints were Bishops of the Church.
In fact, St Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyon in Gaul (France generally). So the faith was well established by 190 ad, as it had established itself within France. So this Church had Bishops in France, as St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus as Bishop of Lyon.
During his life first as a priest and then as a Bishop St. Irenaeus met and communicated with two Popes, first Pope Eleutherius in 177 ad, and then later with Pope Victor in 190 ad.
Both of St. Irenaeus’ communications with the Popes concerned helping christians in both Gaul and Asia Minor. So the faith of St. Irenaeus existed in France and also in Asia Minor in 190 ad, and this faith of St. Iranaeus and of the christians in France and Asia Minor was also the faith of the Popes in Rome.
Yes, much of what you say sounds reasonable. I’d add that the leadership of the Church resided in Jerusalem up until around 70 AD when the Roman general Titus (who later became Emperor) sacked Jerusalem, and burned and demolished the Jewish temple.

The ancient Jewish historian and general Josephus writes that Titus gave the order to allow anyone wanting to lay down their arms to flee the city unharmed. I imagine the apostles and believers in Jerusalem, remembering Christ’s words, took Him up on the offer.
“When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation’standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.”

(Mark 13:14-19)
Although, i suppose that whether Christ’s prophecy applied to 70 AD, or to some future date, or to both, remains to be seen.

So, please tell me if you know, Thing, what did Polycarp (the disciple of John the apostle) have to say about the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?
 
So, please tell me if you know, Thing, what did Polycarp (the disciple of John the apostle) have to say about the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?
What did he have to say about the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or what he had to say to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?;

While Anicetus was Pope, St. Polycarp, then in extreme old age, came to confer with him (160-162) about the Paschal controversy; Polycarp and others in the East celebrating the feast on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it fell; whereas in Rome it was always observed on Sunday, and the day of the Lord’s death on Friday. The matter was discussed but nothing was decided. According to Eusebius: “Polycarp could not persuade the Pope, nor the Pope, Polycarp. The controversy was not ended but the bonds of charity were not broken”; the Pope permitting the aged saint to celebrate on the day he had been accustomed to in the Church of Smyrna.
Hegesippus, the first Christian historian whose writings are of great value, because he lived so near the time of the Apostles, also came to Rome at this time. His visit is recorded by most ecclesiastical authors as noteworthy, inasmuch as it calls attention to the fact that many illustrious men repaired to Rome at that period, thus emphasizing very early the supreme dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiffs. Marcion, Marcellinus, Valentine, and Cordo were also at Rome, disturbing the Church by their Manichæism. Anicetus suffered martyrdom in 161, but the dates vary between 16, 17, and 20 April.

“Against Heresies”, St. Irenæus makes his celebrated appeal to the “successions” of the bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against heretics who professed to have a kind of esoteric tradition derived from the Apostles. To whom, demands St. Irenæus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches? In order then to know what the Apostles taught, we must have recourse to the “successions” of bishops throughout the world. But as time and space would fail if we tried to enumerate them all one by one, let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them (“for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must needs agree”, etc.).

From Iraneaus;
. . And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp … nor Polycarp Anicetus . . . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace", etc.

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, “who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles”. From the Roman Church, representing all the churches, the writer then passes on to two Churches, that of Smyrna, in which, in the person of Polycarp, the sub-Apostolic Age had been carried down to a time still within living memory, and the Church of Ephesus, where, in the person of St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till “the time of Trajan”. Of Polycarp he says, “he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna”. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome, where he converted many heretics. He then continues, "there are those who heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words ‘Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within’. Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said ‘Recognise us’, replied, ‘Ay, ay, I recognise the first-born of Satan’ ".

The Smyrnaean letter describing St. Polycarp’s martyrdom
Polycarp’s martyrdom is described in a letter from the Church of Smyrna, to the Church of Philomelium “and to all the brotherhoods of the holy and universal Church”, etc. The letter begins with an account of the persecution and the heroism of the martyrs. Conspicuous among them was one Germanicus, who encouraged the rest, and when exposed to the wild beasts, incited them to slay him. His death stirred the fury of the multitude, and the cry was raised “Away with the atheists; let search be made for Polycarp”. But there was one Quintus, who of his own accord had given himself up to the persecutors. When he saw the wild beasts he lost heart and apostatized. “Wherefore”, comment the writers of the epistle, “we praise not those who deliver themselves up, since the Gospel does not so teach us”. Polycarp was persuaded by his friends to leave the city and conceal himself in a farm-house. Here he spent his time in prayer, “and while praying he falleth into a trance three days before his apprehension; and he saw his pillow burning with fire. And he turned and said unto those that were with him, ‘it must needs be that I shall be burned alive’”. When his pursuers were on his track he went to another farm-house. Finding him gone they put two slave boys to the torture, and one of them betrayed his place of concealment. Herod, head of the police, sent a body of men to arrest him on Friday evening. Escape was still possible, but the old man refused to flee, saying, “the will of God be done”. He came down to meet his pursuers, conversed affably with them, and ordered food to be set before them. While they were eating he prayed, “remembering all, high and low, who at any time had come in his way, and the Catholic Church throughout the world”. Then he was led away.

So St. Polycarp was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, the Church of St John the Aopstle and of St. Paul, and he recognised and met and conversed with the Pope Anicetus, Bishop of Rome.
 
Yes, much of what you say sounds reasonable. I’d add that the leadership of the Church resided in Jerusalem up until around 70 AD when the Roman general Titus (who later became Emperor) sacked Jerusalem, and burned and demolished the Jewish temple.

So, please tell me if you know, Thing, what did Polycarp (the disciple of John the apostle) have to say about the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?
The leaders of the Church did not reside in Jerusalem up to 70 AD, only James resided as leader in Jerusalem. He was the brother (cousin) of Jesus. Around 2 years before the Destruction of Jerusalem, he was killed by the High Priest (as recorded by Josephus). Simeon (another relative of Jesus) took his place as Bishop of Jerusalem, and under the inspiriation of a prophet, removed the Christian congregation to Pella, around 2 days from Jerusalem (according to Eusebeus).

As for the idea that the leadership of the Church was in Jerusalem, James was the leader of the Jewish Christian faction. Paul can be called the leader of the Gentil Christian faction, and Peter straddled both. Both sides looks to Peter for guidance in their disputes.

God bless,
Ut

P.S. Just a quick note on the big rock little rock debate. No Greek speaking Christian ever mentions this distinction in their exegiesis. Three, off hand, that I know of who delved into this issue were Origen, Cyprian, and Tertullian. No Church Father, or Heretic, or Schismatic, mentions this distinction. It only appears well after ther reformation. (I know this is an argument from silence, but this is an awful long silence on an issue that seems so important, and on a passage of scripture that was so frequently analyzed by greek speaking Christians.)
 
P7:

How do you define the word church that Jesus spoke in Matthew?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

🤷
Dear Soc,

ONE thing that is clear from the verse you quote is that His Church is ONE.

The only other verse where Jesus is quoted as mentioning the word “Church” is again in Matthew, ch 18:
*
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.*

Here we have a visible, recognizable and hearable church.

So IMHO the Lord points us to oneness ( the ONE Church built by Jesus on the “petra” ) and visibility ( we have to be able to speak to the church, listen to the church), when speaking about the Church.

Now, in the protestant models, I have to listen to “churches” which are not seen as part of the one Church built by Jesus. Which - in order to reconcile the amazingly fissiparous nature of protestant ecclesial bodies with Matthew 16:18 and the Creed - is postulated to be an undetectable body. To it the visible and acting bodies appear to be linked just to some varying and not so clear degrees.
 
Yes, Socrates had a lot of memorable things to say.

🙂

And yes, i agree, that the Holy Spirit does not give everyone 100% of the truth 100% of the time. However, Jesus did not say the Spirit would give us the truth, instead He said:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

(John 16:13)
Guiding someone to discover the truth herself is not the same as giving her the truth, i think. I suppose that discovering truth is like hunting for a rare treasure: You have to know where to dig and you sometimes have to dig deep to get at it.

http://www.leehansen.com/clipart/Themes/Pirates/thumbs/treasure-map-th.gif
This emphasis of yours on “guiding” seems to me very appropriate. The Church can guide if and only if She is guided. The Apostles are not given immediate perfect knowledge, they had to call a Council as recorded in Acts 15 to decide the Church’s stance on the grave question of the time.
In a similar way, and after this scriptural paradigm, the Apostolic Church would celebrate Councils any time it is needed to assess a challenge or a new situation. The last time, as you know, it was in the '60ies. 🙂

For a catholic understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit, and what is described about that in the Upper Room speach, you might want to google "Dominum et vivificantem" the encyclical by JPII. Here are some excerpts I like to propose for a quicker consideration:

*4. Jesus adds: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."19 The Holy Spirit will be the Counselor of the Apostles and the Church, always present in their midst-even though invisible-as the teacher of the same Good News that Christ proclaimed. The words “he will teach” and “bring to remembrance” mean …that he will ensure continuity and identity of understanding in the midst of changing conditions and circumstances.
The Holy Spirit, then, will ensure that in the Church there will always continue the same truth which the Apostles heard from their Master. *

*5. In transmitting the Good News, the Apostles will be in a special way associated with the Holy Spirit. "When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning."20 *
*Apostles were the direct eyewitnesses. They “have heard” and “have seen with their own eyes,” “have looked upon” and even “touched with their hands” Christ, as the evangelist John says in another passage.
This human, first-hand and “historical” witness to Christ is linked to the witness of the Holy Spirit:…
The supreme and most complete revelation of God to humanity is Jesus Christ himself, and the witness of the Spirit inspires, guarantees and convalidates the faithful transmission of this revelation in the preaching and writing of the Apostles,22 while the witness of the Apostles ensures its human expression in the Church and in the history of humanity. *

Does that sound reasonable ?

Bless you
 
What did he have to say about the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or what he had to say to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church?;

While Anicetus was Pope, St. Polycarp, then in extreme old age, came to confer with him (160-162) about the Paschal controversy; Polycarp and others in the East celebrating the feast on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it fell; whereas in Rome it was always observed on Sunday, and the day of the Lord’s death on Friday. The matter was discussed but nothing was decided. According to Eusebius: “Polycarp could not persuade the Pope, nor the Pope, Polycarp. The controversy was not ended but the bonds of charity were not broken”; the Pope permitting the aged saint to celebrate on the day he had been accustomed to in the Church of Smyrna.
Hegesippus, the first Christian historian whose writings are of great value, because he lived so near the time of the Apostles, also came to Rome at this time. His visit is recorded by most ecclesiastical authors as noteworthy, inasmuch as it calls attention to the fact that many illustrious men repaired to Rome at that period, thus emphasizing very early the supreme dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiffs. Marcion, Marcellinus, Valentine, and Cordo were also at Rome, disturbing the Church by their Manichæism. Anicetus suffered martyrdom in 161, but the dates vary between 16, 17, and 20 April.

“Against Heresies”, St. Irenæus makes his celebrated appeal to the “successions” of the bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against heretics who professed to have a kind of esoteric tradition derived from the Apostles. To whom, demands St. Irenæus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches? In order then to know what the Apostles taught, we must have recourse to the “successions” of bishops throughout the world. But as time and space would fail if we tried to enumerate them all one by one, let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them (“for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must needs agree”, etc.).

From Iraneaus;
. . And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp … nor Polycarp Anicetus . . . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace", etc.

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, “who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles”. From the Roman Church, representing all the churches, the writer then passes on to two Churches, that of Smyrna, in which, in the person of Polycarp, the sub-Apostolic Age had been carried down to a time still within living memory, and the Church of Ephesus, where, in the person of St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till “the time of Trajan”. Of Polycarp he says, “he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna”. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome, where he converted many heretics. He then continues, "there are those who heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words ‘Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within’. Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said ‘Recognise us’, replied, ‘Ay, ay, I recognise the first-born of Satan’ ".

The Smyrnaean letter describing St. Polycarp’s martyrdom
Polycarp’s martyrdom is described in a letter from the Church of Smyrna, to the Church of Philomelium “and to all the brotherhoods of the holy and universal Church”, etc. The letter begins with an account of the persecution and the heroism of the martyrs. Conspicuous among them was one Germanicus, who encouraged the rest, and when exposed to the wild beasts, incited them to slay him. His death stirred the fury of the multitude, and the cry was raised “Away with the atheists; let search be made for Polycarp”. But there was one Quintus, who of his own accord had given himself up to the persecutors. When he saw the wild beasts he lost heart and apostatized. “Wherefore”, comment the writers of the epistle, “we praise not those who deliver themselves up, since the Gospel does not so teach us”. Polycarp was persuaded by his friends to leave the city and conceal himself in a farm-house. Here he spent his time in prayer, “and while praying he falleth into a trance three days before his apprehension; and he saw his pillow burning with fire. And he turned and said unto those that were with him, ‘it must needs be that I shall be burned alive’”. When his pursuers were on his track he went to another farm-house. Finding him gone they put two slave boys to the torture, and one of them betrayed his place of concealment. Herod, head of the police, sent a body of men to arrest him on Friday evening. Escape was still possible, but the old man refused to flee, saying, “the will of God be done”. He came down to meet his pursuers, conversed affably with them, and ordered food to be set before them. While they were eating he prayed, “remembering all, high and low, who at any time had come in his way, and the Catholic Church throughout the world”. Then he was led away.

So St. Polycarp was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, the Church of St John the Aopstle and of St. Paul, and he recognised and met and conversed with the Pope Anicetus, Bishop of Rome.
Thank you, Thing. Do you have links to any texts written by Polycarp, for example. The earlier the text, the better (being closer to the birth of the church, you know, i’d tend to find it more convincing).
 
The leaders of the Church did not reside in Jerusalem up to 70 AD, only James resided as leader in Jerusalem. He was the brother (cousin) of Jesus. Around 2 years before the Destruction of Jerusalem, he was killed by the High Priest (as recorded by Josephus). Simeon (another relative of Jesus) took his place as Bishop of Jerusalem, and under the inspiriation of a prophet, removed the Christian congregation to Pella, around 2 days from Jerusalem (according to Eusebeus).

As for the idea that the leadership of the Church was in Jerusalem, James was the leader of the Jewish Christian faction. Paul can be called the leader of the Gentil Christian faction, and Peter straddled both. Both sides looks to Peter for guidance in their disputes.

God bless,
Ut

…
Unfortunately, Ut, the only history i have of the early Church are the writings of the good doctor Luke (the Acts of the Apostles) and the writings of some ancient Roman historians. Acts mentions Paul being sent to Rome, while under arrest. Indeed, the ancient Roman historians whose works i’ve read tell of great persecutions of the saints originating at Rome. Perhaps the most well know of these persecutions being that begun by Emperor Nero, who made human Roman Candles out of Christians, lighting them on fire so that they would light his dinner parties and entertain his lust for tormenting the innocent. Regarding Peter, do you know what is the earliest reference to his arriving in Rome?

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberus at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who plead guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when the daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the Circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

From The Annals of Tacitus, Book XV
 
… P.S. Just a quick note on the big rock little rock debate. No Greek speaking Christian ever mentions this distinction in their exegiesis. Three, off hand, that I know of who delved into this issue were Origen, Cyprian, and Tertullian. No Church Father, or Heretic, or Schismatic, mentions this distinction. It only appears well after ther reformation. (I know this is an argument from silence, but this is an awful long silence on an issue that seems so important, and on a passage of scripture that was so frequently analyzed by greek speaking Christians.)
No surprise, that. For i find it hard to believe that the later Catholic Church would seek to preserve the writings of those whom they deemed heretics.
 
Dear Soc,

ONE thing that is clear from the verse you quote is that His Church is ONE.

The only other verse where Jesus is quoted as mentioning the word “Church” is again in Matthew, ch 18:

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Here we have a visible, recognizable and hearable church.

So IMHO the Lord points us to oneness ( the ONE Church built by Jesus on the “petra” ) and visibility ( we have to be able to speak to the church, listen to the church), when speaking about the Church.

Now, in the protestant models, I have to listen to “churches” which are not seen as part of the one Church built by Jesus. Which - in order to reconcile the amazingly fissiparous nature of protestant ecclesial bodies with Matthew 16:18 and the Creed - is postulated to be an undetectable body. To it the visible and acting bodies appear to be linked just to some varying and not so clear degrees.
I’ve often had difficulty understanding this position, which you and other Catholics believe is so compelling. Perhaps you will be able to dispel my confusion.

Are you, P7, saying that for an organization to be one, it must have one government headed by one supreme leader?
 
This emphasis of yours on “guiding” seems to me very appropriate. The Church can guide if and only if She is guided. The Apostles are not given immediate perfect knowledge, they had to call a Council as recorded in Acts 15 to decide the Church’s stance on the grave question of the time.
In a similar way, and after this scriptural paradigm, the Apostolic Church would celebrate Councils any time it is needed to assess a challenge or a new situation. The last time, as you know, it was in the '60ies. 🙂

For a catholic understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit, and what is described about that in the Upper Room speach, you might want to google "Dominum et vivificantem" the encyclical by JPII. Here are some excerpts I like to propose for a quicker consideration:

*4. Jesus adds: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said *to you."19 The Holy Spirit will be the Counselor of the Apostles and the Church, always present in their midst-even though invisible-as the teacher of the same Good News that Christ proclaimed. The words “he will teach” and “bring to remembrance” mean …that he will ensure continuity and identity of understanding in the midst of changing conditions and circumstances.
*The Holy Spirit, then, will ensure that in the Church there will always continue the same truth which the Apostles heard from their Master. *

*5. In transmitting the Good News, the Apostles will be in a special way associated with the Holy Spirit. "When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning."20 *
Apostles were the direct eyewitnesses. They “have heard” and “have seen with their own eyes,” “have looked upon” and even “touched with their hands” Christ, as the evangelist John says in another passage.
This human, first-hand and “historical” witness to Christ is linked to the witness of the Holy Spirit:…
The supreme and most complete revelation of God to humanity is Jesus Christ himself, and the witness of the Spirit inspires, guarantees and convalidates the faithful transmission of this revelation in the preaching and writing of the Apostles,22 while the witness of the Apostles ensures its human expression in the Church and in the history of humanity
.

Does that sound reasonable ?

Bless you
Sure!

👍
 
Since it is your own idea then you have the authority to explain it, I won’t impose my own explanation on your idea.
😃
Getting back to that idea you asked me to explain–namely that Jesus’ use of ambiguity was an act of mercy–i’d say this:

I proposed that the following is true:

Premise 1.

Christ’s words make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

I think, Thing, that you do not disagree that a Protestant can be sincere in His belief that the rock of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 was not Peter, though she might be sincerely wrong. And i don’t think you disagree that a Protestant may reasonably come to the conclusion that the rock of whom Matthew wrote was Jesus or the truth that Peter spoke rather than Peter himself. Although, i’d say it’s not unreasonable for you to disagree based on your examination of the evidence supporting the Catholic view. This brings me to the next premise:

Premise 2.

Christ intentionally used words that He knew would make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.
I don’t think much needs to be said to convince you of the validity of premise 2. Jesus the Son of Man might not have been consciously aware of the future consequences of every word He spoke, but the Son of God dwelling in His flesh, being omniscient, most certainly was. He knew when Jesus spoke the words,

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

That Catholics like you, and Protestant-use-to-bes like myself, would have contradictory ideas about what He meant by using the rock metaphor He knew full well. In His divinity He was fully aware of this conversation we would be having at this very moment in time. And being fully aware, there was noting unintentional about the words He chose. He was intentionally ambiguous.
 
Getting back to that idea you asked me to explain–namely that Jesus’ use of ambiguity was an act of mercy–i’d say this:

I proposed that the following is true:

Premise 1.

Christ’s words make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.

I think, Thing, that you do not disagree that a Protestant can be sincere in His belief that the rock of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 16 was not Peter, though she might be sincerely wrong. And i don’t think you disagree that a Protestant may reasonably come to the conclusion that the rock of whom Matthew wrote was Jesus or the truth that Peter spoke rather than Peter himself. Although, i’d say it’s not unreasonable for you to disagree based on your examination of the evidence supporting the Catholic view. This brings me to the next premise:

Premise 2.

Christ intentionally used words that He knew would make it easy for others to get the wrong idea about important doctrines regarding His church, His mother and His person.
I don’t think much needs to be said to convince you of the validity of premise 2. Jesus the Son of Man might not have been consciously aware of the future consequences of every word He spoke, but the Son of God dwelling in His flesh, being omniscient, most certainly was. He knew when Jesus spoke the words,

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

That Catholics like you, and Protestant-use-to-bes like myself, would have contradictory ideas about what He meant by using the rock metaphor He knew full well. In His divinity He was fully aware of this conversation we would be having at this very moment in time. And being fully aware, there was noting unintentional about the words He chose. He was intentionally ambiguous.
Maybe he did so to make you a better Catholic than me, and to punish those who propagate heresies at the same time. What used Mohammad Ali say; “Rope a dope”.

Saint Paul To The Corinthians
19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.
 
Unfortunately, Ut, the only history i have of the early Church are the writings of the good doctor Luke (the Acts of the Apostles) and the writings of some ancient Roman historians. Acts mentions Paul being sent to Rome, while under arrest. Indeed, the ancient Roman historians whose works i’ve read tell of great persecutions of the saints originating at Rome. Perhaps the most well know of these persecutions being that begun by Emperor Nero, who made human Roman Candles out of Christians, lighting them on fire so that they would light his dinner parties and entertain his lust for tormenting the innocent. Regarding Peter, do you know what is the earliest reference to his arriving in Rome?
Clement of Rome makes reference to both Peter and Paul and calls them pillars of the church in reference to the quote from Timothy.
Chapter 5. No Less Evils Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Quotes from later church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, and Origin, to name a few, also place Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. I can provide quotes for you if you are interested.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberus at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
So here Tacitus is referring to Christ’s crucifixion, then the growing popularity of Christianity in Rome.
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who plead guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when the daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the Circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

From The Annals of Tacitus, Book XV
For some further background on Nero’s reign and what was happening with the Jews, you could read Josephus and Eusebius. Nero came to power, and it appointed more and more incensitive procurators over the area of Judea with Agrippa II as his pro Roman puppet king. One procurator in particular, called Florus provoked the Jews at every turn, over taxing them, ignoring just complaints against Greek Gentile agression. This caused greater and greater fanaticism among the Jerusalem Jew. Under the High Priest, Annanias, James was killed. Annanias was quickly replaced without much ado by the Roman procurator, but the fanatics remained. Soon they outlawed sacrifices for the Emperor at the temple, causing much more devisions among the Jews, especially those who knew that the Romans would squash them like bugs if they revolted.

It was around this time that the Christian Jews under Simeon fled to Pella, as reported by Eusebius.

Then the Jews revoled, and Nero sent Vespasian to put down the revolt, that had been initially successful. Josephus was a general in the Galilean front, that was very quickly put down by Vespasian. Nero was getting more and more crazy, blaming the Christians for burning down Rome (circa 64-65), this also being the time when Peter and Paul would have been martyred. Nero lost favour with the Senate, and knew it was a matter of time before he was assasinated, or replaced, so he asked his servant to run him through with a sword. Vespasian, after being proclaimed emperor by his legions in Isreal, returned to Rome to take control of things, and left his young son Titus in charge of the seige on Jerusalem, which he eventually took.

Some traditions claim that Simeon returned to Jerusalem after the it’s fall and reestablished the church there. Eusebeus numbers a succession of 15 Jewish Christian bishops after Simeon, who had little to no impact on the church. After the revolt of Barkokhbas suppressed under Hadrian, the Jewish line dissapeared. Most Christians looked to Rome for guidance, as the letter of Clement to the Corinthians attests. Antioch was also important, for Gentile Christians. The tradition that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter was known from an early date. Reflection on the central role of Peter was also prevalent.

As the church grew in her understanding of Peter’s role in the early church, so did its understanding of the role of the bishop of Rome grow.

In many ways, I think that Peter did not want to be this central figure head and did not seek this honour, but circumstances always put him in this position, including the words of Christ as reported by Matthew in chapter 16. The Gentile Christians looked to him for leadership, as did the Jewish Christians. He was a man of actions, guided by the spirit. His actions caused new lines of doctrine to develop. For example, allowing Gentiles into the church.

God bless,
Ut
 
No surprise, that. For i find it hard to believe that the later Catholic Church would seek to preserve the writings of those whom they deemed heretics.
Well Tertullian did eventually turn to Montanism. Many of the passages of exegesis on Matthew 16 comes from his Montanist days. Origin was more of a philosopher/Theologian, and was later considered heretical in some of his doctrines, a fact which is questioned today.

Then you have all the Gnostic Gospels, many of which date to this time. Some of them declare Mary Magdalene as rock, or have other metaphors for rocks, but none of them points out the big rock little rock distinction. There are many of these gnostic writings that could have declared this.

God bless,
Ut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top