M
- Status
S
SHW
Guest
Hello,
CANON 4
“It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.”
CANON 5
“Such as have been excommunicated by certain bishops shall not be restored by others, unless the excommunication was the result of pusillanimity, or strife, or some other similar cause. And that this may be duly attended to, there shall be in each year two synods in every province–one before Lent, the other toward autumn.”
CANON 6
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”
What this means is that the Bishop of Alexandria has primal jurisdiction over all of these dioceses of the Eastern Rites just like the Bishop of Rome has primal jurisdiction over all of those dioceses of the Western Rite. None of this is in reference to the primacy of the Pope.
The Bishop of Rome alone has primacy over all “catholic” (universal) churches. He alone has been given the power of the “keys of the kingdom,” a stewardship which is passed down through Apostolic Succession.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
Pax,
SHW
S
SHW
Guest
There is only one General or Final Judgment.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5003465&postcount=441
There is no pre-tribulation rapture.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5003208&postcount=440
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5001560&postcount=437
Revelation 20:11-13 “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.”
The “books” that were opened are the books which have recorded all of our deeds, good and bad, of every person who has ever lived. (Daniel 7:10)
The Book of Life has written within it only the names of those who inherit eternal life. (Daniel 12:1)
There is no rapture of the Church before the great tribulation. There is only one General or Final Judgment. All persons will stand before the throne of God in heaven at this one Judgment.
This is the same exact Judgment as the judging of the sheep and goats. (Matthew 25:32)
The Gospel of Jesus is whatever the Catholic Church teaches regarding faith and morals since she speaks for Jesus.
Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
1 Corinthians 14:37 “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that** the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord**.”
1 Thessalonians 4:1-6 “Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word (orally) or our epistle (letter).”
Hebrews 13:7 “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.”
Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”
The Catholic Church speaks in Jesus’ place. We are commanded to obey the Church’s teachings. We are commanded to obey the leaders of the Church who rule over us. This is the Gospel of Jesus.
Pax,
SHW
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
That’s not what 2 TIm. 3:16-17 says, Jimmy and I think you know it. Why did you re-write it?
Again, that’s not what it says. In re-writing Scripture to say what you want it to say, you’re a true proteatant. Do you know what the penalty is for changing Scripture?
Which is exactly what you did with 2 Tim. 3:16-17. What was that about you being saved again??
Sola Scriptura
C
Cachonga
Guest
rocketrob said, “2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that all Scripture is profitable for teaching, and can be used to expose false teachings.” This is how Jesus used it to condemn a “tradition of men” (Mark 7:5-13). Apart from Scriptures, how do we know if a tradition is a Sacred Tradition, or a tradition of men? As an example – CC499 says, “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. 154 In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” 155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”. 156”. The footnotes (154, 155 & 156) point to other church documents, not to Scripture. I would challenge this dogma as being unscriptural, and, therefore, should not be binding upon Christians. I can point to Matt 13:54-56 (“And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?” Douay Rheims, emphasis is mine. Also see Mark 6:1-4). I would ask, if the “brothers” and “sisters” and not children of Joseph and Mary, why doesn’t the gospel writer call them “cousins” (like he did in regard to Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist)? Why no mention of uncles or aunts? I know some apologists claim that Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James and Joseph, but they aren’t mentioned here, by the people who grew up with Jesus and His family. I can also point to Matt 12:46 (“As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.” Douay Rheims, emphasis is mine. Also see Mark 3:32). Who are these “brothers” if not children of Joseph and Mary? Add to this the fact that this did not become dogma until the middle of the 19th century, it seems obvious that this is NOT a Sacred Tradition, but merely a “tradition of men”, and should be rejected.
Having said that, I understand that what I have presented will be disregarded simply because the “Church” has declared this to be dogma, therefore, it MUST be true. There will be many reasons given to indicate that “brother” doesn’t have to mean “brother”, but could be used to indicate a close relation. I believe, as 2 Tim 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed (qeopneustoV) …” The Gospels were inspired by God, and I find it impossible to believe that He would use Brother if He didn’t mean Brother!
Question – as a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, how is rejecting the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity hurt my relationship with Jesus? (I do acknowledge that Mary was the mother of Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, that she is “blessed of God”, and that she is a model of virtue, integrity, and faithfulness to God. I have not prayed to her (or any other saint) since I left the catholic church.) I readily admit I am not infallible (as any honest person will likewise admit). I admit that my decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church was a fallible decision (though based on Scripture). Likewise, anyone who decides to trust thier immortal soul to the “infallible” Roman Catholic Church is just as fallible.
Having said that, I understand that what I have presented will be disregarded simply because the “Church” has declared this to be dogma, therefore, it MUST be true. There will be many reasons given to indicate that “brother” doesn’t have to mean “brother”, but could be used to indicate a close relation. I believe, as 2 Tim 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed (qeopneustoV) …” The Gospels were inspired by God, and I find it impossible to believe that He would use Brother if He didn’t mean Brother!
Question – as a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, how is rejecting the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity hurt my relationship with Jesus? (I do acknowledge that Mary was the mother of Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, that she is “blessed of God”, and that she is a model of virtue, integrity, and faithfulness to God. I have not prayed to her (or any other saint) since I left the catholic church.) I readily admit I am not infallible (as any honest person will likewise admit). I admit that my decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church was a fallible decision (though based on Scripture). Likewise, anyone who decides to trust thier immortal soul to the “infallible” Roman Catholic Church is just as fallible.
D
Doolin
Guest
[SIGN]” The Gospels were inspired by God, and I find it impossible to believe that He would use Brother if He didn’t mean Brother![/SIGN]
Ok. I am sorry but isn’t this statement kind of ridiculous given that Christians are describe in the bible as “Brothers”. I get tired of such statements when scripture refutes it so easily.
Forgive my attitude.
Many Blessings,
Doolin
Ok. I am sorry but isn’t this statement kind of ridiculous given that Christians are describe in the bible as “Brothers”. I get tired of such statements when scripture refutes it so easily.
Forgive my attitude.
Many Blessings,
Doolin
V
vynette
Guest
SHW
It is your last paragraph that I take issue with. Where is your evidence for this statement?
C
Cachonga
Guest
Easy to use this type of argument when you don’t worry about context. How is “brother” used in the references I cited?
S
Sharp11
Guest
Vynette,
First of all, the canon from Nicea that you cite directly contradicts your assertion that “no See or Bishop was recognised by the universal [catholic] church as having any pre-dominance over another…” It explicitly affirms the pre-dominance of the See of Alexandria over the lesser episcopates in Lybia, Egypt and Petnapolis.
What you really seem to be after, it seems to me, is the notion that the See of Rome held universal authority as Catholics currently ascribe to the pope.
Even there I’m going to have to disagree with you. I’m afraid you’re misreading Canon 6 of Nicea–specifically the phrase you translate as “since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.”
The corresponding Latin text reads as follows: quoniam illa est romano etiam episcopo consuetudo—literally, “seeing that such is also the precedent of the Roman episcopate.”
This might mean one of two things.
- It might mean, as you suggest, that the bishop of Alexandria is to hold regional authority in the same way that Rome holds regional authority.
- It might mean that the bishop of Alexandria is to hold regional authority precisely because the bishop of Rome has set the precedent of assigning the bishop of Alexandria such authority, in addition to the fact that the regional authority of the bishop of Alexandria is already de facto the case.
First of all, note that the canon stipulates the extent of Alexandria’s jurisdiction, but does not do so for Rome, something we would expect should the authors be intending to draw a parallel between the two sees.
Secondly, and more conclusively, I would point to the historical context. In the early church, there was a hierarchy among bishops where the three sees of greatest authority were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, in that order. This can be seen in the third decree of Damasus in 382 AD:
Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: ‘You are Peter …[Matt 16:18-19].’ In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people.
(Note that this quote dates very much prior to 600 AD.)
Already by the fourth century, the power of Constantinople was on the rise, and there was beginning to be some question regarding its rank relative to Antioch and Alexandria (and eventually even Rome, during the Great Schism). It makes sense, then, that the Council of Nicea would be interested in reaffirming the traditional hierarchy among the episcopates by appealing to the precedent set by Rome.
Canon 6, then, was most likely intended to reaffirm the traditional hierarchy among Christian sees, in which Rome held universal jurisdication and Alexandria held regional jurisdiction–not overturn this traditional hierarchy.
Either way, it is certainly not true that the notion of Rome’s universal jurisdiction was a seventh-century innovation. Consider the words of Cyprian of Carthage c. 250 AD:
With false bishops appointed for themselves, they dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access (Cyprian, “Letter to Cornelius”).
Sharp 11
S
SHW
Guest
Matthew 16:17-19 "Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[a] in heaven.”
Only Peter is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He sits in the chair (or seat) of authority in the New Covenant just as Moses sat in the seat (or chair) of authority in the Old Covenant.
Matthew 23:1-3 “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.”
1 Corinthians 4:1 “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”
Colossians 1:25 “of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,”
In ancient times, the head or chief steward kept the keys which opened the treasury rooms of the king and his kingdom. He was appointed to guard the treasury of the kingdom. When he died, the keys were given to another person who then took over this office as head steward. The head steward is above all other stewards.
Peter (and his successors) is the head steward of the Church and so he must guard the treasury of the kingdom, which is the deposit of faith (the gospel of Jesus).
Pax,
SHW
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
first of all my friend i did not quote Scripture, anyway if you believe that not all sound doctrine is from Scripture, and i agree with you that other sources from writers or teachers will be exposed when compared to Scripture. that is why we (believers) go with sola Scriptura cause like i mentioned before:
the Bible teaches what is True
the Bible shows us what is wrong in our lives
the Bible helps us do what is right
now as for timothy what he was taught was the Torah, the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 6:7
remember the New Testament had not been written as we know it but it was in the process with the letters.
if we put more emphasis on other writings ahead of the Bible we stand in error. a believer should read their Bible.
the Bible is the only book we nee to discover the foundational truths of how to know and walk with God. some aberrant religious groups or cults insist we need another book to help us interpret what the Bible says. but the Bible needs no outside interpretation. it speaks for itself. in fact, the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible.
God Bless
R
ralphy
Guest
I still do not understand why you catholics push tradition, when the Bible says you will be judged by Gods word. Hierarchy in the Roman catholic church can change tradition anytime they like, after all, they are the ones who started it.Gods word will never change, it is solid and forever. Ralph
D
Dee_Jay
Guest
Hummm…but all others are faulty to some point too no one is perfecto.However,if we have a question that we need answers we can pray it directly to the Lord Jeus whose Presence is with us(after you take Eucharistic bread)and tell HIM everyone has their explanations & diffrerent versions can i have your true versions Lord Jesus??I have not ask this question myself maybe some of you have, share the answer with us.Wow! That is a truly amazing coincidence. That’s the 3,957th time today someone has has quoted that number to me, so it Must be accurate.
R
rocketrob
Guest
It definitely seemed that you implied a conclusion by referencing this passage. I wasn’t the only one who took it this way.
I haven’t seen anyone push ‘other writings’ over Scripture in this thread. The Sacred Tradition being discussed comes from the words and teachings that Jesus Himself passed on to the Apostles. And that Tradition is not held ‘over’ Scripture, but in equal regard with it. The two can’t stand independently, but only together.
Again, ‘we Catholics’ are pushing the words and teachings of Christ Himself as Sacred Tradition. Together with Scripture, it forms the complete Word of God, which is actually Christ Himself. And that Word can’t and doesn’t change. However, the traditional practices of the Church can change from time to time, as my complete Catechism reference indicated.
rocketrob
V
vynette
Guest
Sharp 11,
I never stated that there were no ‘claims’ for primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
We should not be surprised that Pope Damasus made such a claim.
Nor should we be surprised that Cyprian at one time made such a claim given the fact of the close communion between Carthage and Rome. At other times, relationships between the two sees were stormy. [A reading of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article African Synods, and the wrangle over a deposed priest name Apiarius, might dispel some illusions about claims that Roman Primacy was acknowledged by the universal Church.]
The fact remains that Damasus and Cyprian were both Western bishops
Notwithstanding that the Emperor Phocas decreed in 607 AD that “the Apostolic See of the blessed Apostle Peter” should always be “the head of all Churches,” the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the universal church stands disputed even to this day by most of orthodox Christianity in the East.
I never stated that there were no ‘claims’ for primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
We should not be surprised that Pope Damasus made such a claim.
Nor should we be surprised that Cyprian at one time made such a claim given the fact of the close communion between Carthage and Rome. At other times, relationships between the two sees were stormy. [A reading of the Catholic Encyclopaedia article African Synods, and the wrangle over a deposed priest name Apiarius, might dispel some illusions about claims that Roman Primacy was acknowledged by the universal Church.]
The fact remains that Damasus and Cyprian were both Western bishops
Notwithstanding that the Emperor Phocas decreed in 607 AD that “the Apostolic See of the blessed Apostle Peter” should always be “the head of all Churches,” the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the universal church stands disputed even to this day by most of orthodox Christianity in the East.
S
Sharp11
Guest
Hi Ralphy,
As rocketrob says, Catholics believe that the word of God consists of both Scripture and Tradition. Therefore in order to infer Sola Scriptura from what the Bible says about “the word of God,” you first have to establish that this phrase is referring to Scripture and Scripture alone.
I have never seen a verse in the Bible that restricts the meaning of “the word of God” in this manner.
Sharp 11
V
vynette
Guest
SHW and Sharp 11
The premise of your statements is of course that Peter founded the church in Rome.
There is actually no evidence for this. Peter’s putative residence in Rome was not even asserted before 170-180 AD.
Can you provide any evidence prior to 170-180 AD that Peter was ever in Rome?
The premise of your statements is of course that Peter founded the church in Rome.
There is actually no evidence for this. Peter’s putative residence in Rome was not even asserted before 170-180 AD.
Can you provide any evidence prior to 170-180 AD that Peter was ever in Rome?
S
Sharp11
Guest
Vynette,
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I took what you had said to indicate that you considered the primacy of the Roman See to be a seventh-century innovation.
Sure, I agree that this primacy was not universally accepted in the early Church, just as many Christians (Orthodox and Protestant) do not accept it today. But I would maintain that the authority of Rome was widely, if not universally, recognized from the earliest days of Christianity.
In any event, I’m not sure that this acceptance was limited to the West. The council of Sardica, overseen by the same bishop who might have overseen the council of Nicea (Osius of Cordoba), had this to say on the matter:
*If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew…let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province *(Third Canon).
Admittedly, many Eastern bishops boycotted the council. But it is noteworthy to point out that it would be hard to believe that this council would flatly contradict what Nicea had decreed a mere 20 years earlier, especially seeing that some of the big players (e.g. Osius) were the same in both councils.
Sharp 11
S
Sharp11
Guest
Vynette,
Sure. How about the first epistle of Peter?
*She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. * (1Pet 5:13)
Babylon was a common code word for Rome in the early Church.
Also, Ignatius writes c. 110 AD:
*Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you . They were apostles, and I am a convict (Letter to the Romans 4:3).
Neither of these excerpts provide indisputable evidence that Peter was in Rome, but they are suggestive. Moreover there are many authors after 170 AD–a deadline that seems to be arbitrarily if rather conveniently set by you–who testify to Peter’s residence in Rome.
Do you have any evidence that Peter was *not *in Rome?
Sharp 11*
- Status