B
benhur
Guest
Yahoo! Tell it like it is. Bring it on . Amen.
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
No .The apostles made more disciples some of which were appointed elders/presbyters/bishops. The door was open, the foundation was laid for the continuation of what they had started.
B
benhur
Guest
No, but interestingly we all do it in at least thanksgiving (eucharist) and remembrance and we all believe at least that bread and wine are the symbols used to that end, and we all repeat the Lord’s words of consecration and we all strive to participate worthily as oft as we do it till His return. God for sure has done that in unity in the Body, around the world, for two thousand years and counting.
B
benhur
Guest
He does that thru us the "ecclisia’’, the called out ones, the church
Last I heard all from the "ecclesia " are mere men, from Peter to Luther and Ignatius or to Newman and Lewis. What you are suggesting is that we discern whom God has indeed set apart and molded into His Body. If we are to discern that then we can also discern their teachings from A to Z, each on it’s own merit.
B
benhur
Guest
Again I believe i answered it in my first post to you. I do not see it as Peter as a continuing office of headship. How could it be taken that way when apostles still bickered as to who would be greater and again as to who would sit at right hand ? They clearly took matt 16 as I suggested of faith and confession as to whom Jesus is, not whom Peter is .The day of penetecost and the adding of 3000 suggests this. Peter used those "keys"The further commission to the apostles suggests this-use the same keys, to preach the forgiveness of sins thru Jesus and the Father is "drawing/revealing’ as also seen in conversion of the gentiles /Cornelius. God is enabling those on the other side of the door to hear and receive the gospel once the door is opened by us (keys) to preach to them.
N
nmgauss
Guest
How does the following account of apostolic succession fit in with the above?
An early understanding of apostolic succession is represented by the traditional claims of various churches, as organised around important episcopal sees, to have been founded by specific apostles. On the basis of these traditions, the churches in question often claim to have inherited specific authority, doctrines and/or practices on the authority of their founding apostle(s), which is understood to be continued by the bishops of the apostolic throne of the church that each founded and whose original leader he was. Thus:
The See of Rome claims to have been founded by Saint Peter, traditionally called the “Prince of the Apostles” and the “Chief of the Apostles”.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims Saint Andrew as its founder.
The Patriarchate of Alexandria (Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria) claims to have been founded by Saint Mark.[43][44]
The Patriarchate of Antioch (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Syriac Orthodox Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and the Whole Levant) claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Peter.[45]
The Patriarchate of Jerusalem claims to have been founded by Saint James the Just.[46]
The Armenian Apostolic Church, based at Etchmiadzin, claims to have been founded by Saints Bartholomew and Thaddeus.[47]
The following bodies claim to have been founded by Saint Thomas the Apostle: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, originating in or around Mesopotamia,[48] and churches based in Kerala, India having Syriac roots and generically known as the Saint Thomas Christians: the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church,[49] and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church claims founding by Saint Philip the Evangelist.[50]
The Orthodox Church of Georgia claims Saint Andrew and Simon the Canaanite as its founders.
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, based at New Justiana (Erdek), claims to have been founded by the apostles Saints Paul and Barnabas[51]
The Russian Orthodox Church claims a connection with Saint Andrew, who is said to have visited the area where the city of Kiev later arose.[52]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession
J
joe371
Guest
But, did Jesus leave us with a way to know who’s interpretation is the one he intended his followers to embrace? The Catholic understanding is different from the Lutheran understanding the and Lutheran understanding is different from other churches.
J
joe371
Guest
There isn’t just one church though; there are hundreds. How can I know what to believe when each of these churches teach something different about any one doctrine e.g. the Eucharist? My sisters church teaches one thing; the CC teaches the opposite, and the Lutheran church comes close, but also teaches something different than the CC and her evangelical church, and here we are only taking about 3 ekklesial communities.
J
joe371
Guest
I don’t see how this passage nullifies the Petrine office and the apostolic ecumenical councils:
"An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”
Jesus also said: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
Pentecost, and the power of the HS, is the moment when the apostles were empowered, as fallible sinners to teach infallibly, and they did.
Peter was a fallible sinner; the rest of the apostles, including Paul, were all fallible sinners, and yet they were able to teach infallibly. Were these infallible teachings of Jesus Christ passed on, from the fallible apostles to fallible successors. who did the same, in your opinion, of course with the HS guiding the process? Or, did error creep into the church invalidating this process of preserving truth? If so then when?
You are rock and on this rock…impossible to deny the grammatical logic.
You believe that every Christian was given the keys? Perhaps I misunderstood. I only see Jesus giving the keys to Peter. Keys represent authority, as was the case in Isaiah 22. Those keys represent the Petrine office. In Matthew 18, no keys were given, but we do see Jesus instituting another teaching office, namely the ecumenical council, something we see take place in Acts 15.
Matthew 18 - But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will bee] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bef] loosed in heaven.
:
Matthew 16 - And I tell you that you are Peter,**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16#fen-NIV-23691b”)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesc] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee] loosed in heaven.
B
benhur
Guest
Aw Joe, if it weren’t for the “but’s”. Maybe “we” fight foolishly, even as did the apostles from time to time, not biting their tongues.
B
benhur
Guest
Seems to fit somewhat provided the apostles factually did establish those specific churches and appointed presbyters.
B
benhur
Guest
Apparently all three of you have chosen somehow as have I. So it is not "how’’ to decide, for we all have. Now I do not feel in the need for further refereeing do you ? That is do you need for someone to tell you you are right, after all we have already been told ?
B
benhur
Guest
Again it is not the "process’’ God set up that is in question. A teacher teaches infallibly only if what he says is true. Does everything uttered or done show infallible teaching ? No. Yet they did utter infallible truth’s. Again you can be 100 % right on but if you add an untruth trying to go 101 %, you now have 100 true and 1 false. God still provides the 100.
The Greek is considered 100% infallibly logical and true and Jesus is both Petras and Petros in scripture while Peter is the one smaller rock/stone. And all of us are built upon, Peter also, and the other eleven as per RevelationsYou are rock and on this rock…impossible to deny the grammatical logic.
Peter indeed had keys, as did the other apostles, and as I believe to an extent all believers (if you don’t your are not a disciple).
I see authority in the believer, made stronger with two, and even stronger with the body/ecclesia. Do not see this dealing with doctrine but with sin/offense. Yet 18 does have keys of a sort for they do the same as in 16 , “bind and loose”. Jesus says “you” and where “two of you are” and is not just referring to the generic "ecclesia ’ or elders etc…Again the binding really has already occurred, that is you are binding infallibly because God is giving the 100. He does not contradict Himself or go against His will. The Jerusalem council is good example. God had already told Peter the Gentiles were clean (without circumcision implied) and the Spirit fell on the gentiles before any “rite” of passage, indicating total acceptance/justification. The council made it binding on earth as was already bound in heaven…I have read it comes from understanding Greek, where the greater (God) binds lesser (us or any offices/ecclesia) and not vice versa.
N
nmgauss
Guest
St. Andrew, St. Mark, St. Thomas, St. Bartholomew, St. Philip, and St. Paul are all credited with establishing independent Christian churches in separate regions. What evidence exists that they were all somehow tied in with the Roman See?
M
marywarfield
Guest
Yes that’s true enough. But I don’t see where any
of that misplaces Peter in primacy ie resolution of
dispute?
If Jesus had intended for each to be rocks don’t
you think He would have stated that?
What He stated is Peter was the rock who would
strengthen Gus brothers.
No matter how it is sliced it comes back to
Peter as the primary support for the rest.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I think in the discussion of Peter an important context
is missing. I have found as a lifelong Catholic that attempting to
define the Gospels without comparing to their OT counterpart
is very confusing. We need to realize in these discourses
to Peter Christ was bringing His Old Covenant
to and end and initiating His New Covenant. So
when something doesn’t make sense we can go
look at the Old Covenant.
Two Things:
One thing not mentioned here is that Cephas or
“rock” had another meaning altogether in the Old
Covenant. Abraham was also “rock”. In Isiaah 51:1-2
Abraham is called rock as in meaning he was to be the
physical father of all the children of Israel. Both Peter
and Christ were aware of the significance of the
imagery.
Binding and loosing:
In Isiaah 22: 20-25 we see the description of office of
the Davidic Vicar/Prime Minister:
He was the “rock” as in father to the people of
the Kingdom.
He had the only key to the ONLY key to the
House of David.
Possession of that key gave him the authority
and the power to “open” and “shut” decisions
for the good of the entire family of the Davidic Kingdom.
His was the responsibility for the glory of
every member of the family of the Davidic Kingdom
from the “smallest to the greatest”.
And he got to wear special robes denoting
his authority as the Davidic King’s Vicar. (not
sure about the red Pradas)
Now I don’t know about you but when I know THIS
about the Davidic King’s Vicar and compare it to
what Christ the King is saying to Peter I hear
Christ expects Peter to be His Vicar on earth.
Read Isiaah 22: 20-25 and compare to Christ’s
discourse to Peter.
Incidentally “rock”=Abraham=Father=Cephas=
Peter=Pope/Papa.
is missing. I have found as a lifelong Catholic that attempting to
define the Gospels without comparing to their OT counterpart
is very confusing. We need to realize in these discourses
to Peter Christ was bringing His Old Covenant
to and end and initiating His New Covenant. So
when something doesn’t make sense we can go
look at the Old Covenant.
Two Things:
One thing not mentioned here is that Cephas or
“rock” had another meaning altogether in the Old
Covenant. Abraham was also “rock”. In Isiaah 51:1-2
Abraham is called rock as in meaning he was to be the
physical father of all the children of Israel. Both Peter
and Christ were aware of the significance of the
imagery.
Binding and loosing:
In Isiaah 22: 20-25 we see the description of office of
the Davidic Vicar/Prime Minister:
He was the “rock” as in father to the people of
the Kingdom.
He had the only key to the ONLY key to the
House of David.
Possession of that key gave him the authority
and the power to “open” and “shut” decisions
for the good of the entire family of the Davidic Kingdom.
His was the responsibility for the glory of
every member of the family of the Davidic Kingdom
from the “smallest to the greatest”.
And he got to wear special robes denoting
his authority as the Davidic King’s Vicar. (not
sure about the red Pradas)
Now I don’t know about you but when I know THIS
about the Davidic King’s Vicar and compare it to
what Christ the King is saying to Peter I hear
Christ expects Peter to be His Vicar on earth.
Read Isiaah 22: 20-25 and compare to Christ’s
discourse to Peter.
Incidentally “rock”=Abraham=Father=Cephas=
Peter=Pope/Papa.
B
benhur
Guest
No but it does show authority structure beyond or without his chair, and that no one dismisses all authority.
Well He kind of did, just as Peter 's was stated ( though we differ on what He meant), and that of other apostles and subsequent appointed presbyters.
Yes, but is that an "office’’, with succession ? Strengthen what ? I say their faith and testimony. Don’t see guiding except by example or correcting or being “boss”. I would say somewhat of an office but not beyond “first amongst equals”. His confession was his “rock” and that is why he was so devastated of his thrice denial and went back to fishing. No one denies Peter was a leader, who needed to be broken to properly channel his stewardship . That is still a long way of saying he had authority over the others and that only his successor could continue that office, or that only he could choose bishops, or that his doctrine would be infallible when the office said so.
M
marywarfield
Guest
If you read my post above yours on the OT
King’s Vicar that will help. But I will repost it for you:
PI think in the discussion of Peter an important context
is missing. I have found as a lifelong Catholic that attempting to
define the Gospels without comparing to their OT counterpart
is very confusing. We need to realize in these discourses
to Peter Christ was bringing His Old Covenant
to and end and initiating His New Covenant. So
when something doesn’t make sense we can go
look at the Old Covenant.
Two Things:
One thing not mentioned here is that Cephas or
“rock” had another meaning altogether in the Old
Covenant. Abraham was also “rock”. In Isiaah 51:1-2
Abraham is called rock as in meaning he was to be the
physical father of all the children of Israel. Both Peter
and Christ were aware of the significance of the
imagery.
Binding and loosing:
In Isiaah 22: 20-25 we see the description of office of
the Davidic Vicar/Prime Minister:
He was the “rock” as in father to the people of
the Kingdom.
He had the only key to the ONLY key to the
House of David.
Possession of that key gave him the authority
and the power to “open” and “shut” decisions
for the good of the entire family of the Davidic Kingdom.
His was the responsibility for the glory of
every member of the family of the Davidic Kingdom
from the “smallest to the greatest”.
And he got to wear special robes denoting
his authority as the Davidic King’s Vicar. (not
sure about the red Pradas)
Now I don’t know about you but when I know THIS
about the Davidic King’s Vicar and compare it to
what Christ the King is saying to Peter I hear
Christ expects Peter to be His Vicar on earth.
Read Isiaah 22: 20-25 and compare to Christ’s
discourse to Peter.
Incidentally “rock”=Abraham=Father=Cephas=
Peter=Pope/Papa.
Plus we can add to the
Isaiah’s and Numbers posted that “all” priesthoods
within the Royal House of David and prior under Abraham
were successorships.
We know that also from the lineage of St. Joseph and
Mary with Joseph descended from the House of David
although not in a priestly fashion and Mary in the
priesthood of her father back to Aaron.
Remember for the Znew Testament to make ANY sense
for Catholics you have to refer the new issue to the
Old Covenant.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Since churches founded by the separate apostles developed their own flavor of Christianity, it is apparent that Jesus’ plan did not materialize. Unity was achieved in the West because of the efforts of Constantine and Theodosius. As soon as the Roman Empire began to break up shortly after Catholicism became the official state religion, there was no compelling reason for the eastern churches to conform to the dictates of Rome.
B
benhur
Guest
Ok for the imagery . For Abraham it is plain that they are physical as well as spiritual “father”. So now how does the imagery apply to Peter ? Others have said it better that Peter physically was first in many things, especially on Pentecost and Cornelius (gentiles) but the real connection again is his faith declaration (another first) and in that we are one with Peter and led us by example. I like the O’s word “pappa” from whence came "pope’ as in "father ", but applied to all bishops who go back to Peter and the apostles, and again Peter being the first but it is imagery more than continual office over other pappas. Just as Abraham can only be a one time first, so was Peter. As the OT moved on from Abraham so should we from Peter, without resurrecting a type of monument to him or the office as if on a type of Mount of Transfiguration. Yes we remember and honor Abraham as we do Peter for we are their spiritual descendants.
Yes but you don’t want to refer to OT so much that you actually go backward and not forward into something "new’’. It is for good reason some have called the Holy Spirit the Vicar. Some have said we, the Body of Christ, are His finger here on the Earth…Further , the OT has many dispensations and types of governance of which we once here of this vicar or prime minister. It does not seem to be a continual office thru out OT as I do not think Peter’s role can ever be duplicated and was not intended to ,except thru the apostles and their successors. Further, Peter was to make disciples and a disciple does what the teacher does. Christ did not commission to make lay people out of all nations. This is “new”
- Status