The Universal Church

[mcq72]

John Bunyan, good writer and Puritan preacher that he no doubt was, apparently was no expert on the Torah (Mosaic Law).

Have you read any of his works? I only have read Pilgrims Progress, the second most printed book in English next to the bible.

Well i base my views and Bunyan also on Pauls writings on the Law. I would think as a Pharisee studying under Gamaliel, he was well trained in the Law.

Judaism, both in ancient times and today, is a religion based on love, compassion, and mercy intertwined with justice

Indeed, but the justice part is the crux, the shedding of blood, to cover transgression…very important part of the Law.

No doubt you have heard that the love, grace and mercy is in G_d’s provision to make us just in His eyes, thru faith, even in atoning blood that He has always provided, from a ram caught in a thicket, or the animal dying to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness, etc. The etc. is in my posted sketch.

We read from Paul that the law is the schoolmaster, not the teacher but the one who gathers and brings the children into the classroom and to the teacher.

The Law points to a Messiah, who saves us from consequences of breaking any of the Law, by fulfilling the Law Himself.(it has always been that G_d justifies us).

As to being the light of the world, agree that the Jewish Law is that in citing righteous conduct towards both God and man. Even more so as light to the world in Judaism is their G_d.

 

[SyCarl]

Nobody is presenting Jerome’s position except Jerome himself. The words quoted are his from his commentary on Titus.

As for Clements letter it is quite likely that they wrote to Rome because they knew Clement as a companion of Paul when he visited their city.

As for one bishop telling another church what to do, Ignatius’ letters are full of directions to the churches to which he is writing. It is also interesting to note that his letter to the Romans is the only one in which he does refer to that church’s bishop.

 

[mcq72]

The famous rabbi Hillel the Elder, a generation prior to Jesus, summed up all 613 commandments of the Torah as falling under the headings of loving G-d and loving one another.

Yes, apparently he taught well, for this is cited by a lawyer in gospel of Luke 10 :24

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Luke 10:26‭-‬28 KJV

Luke 10:26-28 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with a | King James Version (KJV) | Downlo

 

[TULIPed]

As it says, one who knows… and refuses

It seems to me like this concept is similar to the legal concept of acting in “good faith”. The Catholic Church (very reasonably) holds “knowledge” in tension with “conscience” (from my reading and discussion with priests).

For example - I “know” that Zen Buddhism professes to be way to enlightenment and peace. I can’t in good faith believe this as I believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to peace.

Am I sideways here Steve? (BTW - welcome back - haven’t seen you around in a while )

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

even though Corinth asked, who says the bishops of that Church need to obey the bishop of Rome? Unless of course it’s already understood, the authority the bishop of Rome, is universal.

That is myopic view of authority, even like big stick authority. Obviously you take it to be exclusive authority.

Jesus says take a dispute with a brethren to another brethren , so that two witnesses against one may persuade with authoritative reasoning. The other witness is not exclusive. It can be any brethren with objective reasoning. It is an assumption that only Rome has such reasoning authority, to adjoin with another church in correction. So yes there was reasoning in choosing Rome ( Paul and Peter) , etc. ) but it is an assumption even anachronistic to say it was because of supremacy of seat

When Jesus gave that example, and sequence, for dealing with arguments, who is the final source to go to? [The Church]

what did Jesus previously do with the subject of “Church”?

Who did Jesus rename Rock? Simon who is now Peter (Rock)
Who did Jesus say He would build His Church on? Rock, Simon, now Peter
Who did He give the keys of the kingdom to? Simon, now Peter (Rock)

Jesus set up a hierarchy with Peter as the head.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Your opinion aside, here is what scripture and Church history says

Agree with articles, agree with choosing bishops presbyters as needed, agree to succession. My point was that it is conditional, as Iranaeus says “in as much as it holds to the tradional apostolic teaching” which is oral written/ teachings.

Linkage is conditional . Jesus had true linkage ( lineage). Those that put him on cross also claimed linkage, to Moses and Abraham.

When one is no longer “in” the Church, and chooses their own path outside the Church, with their own authority, THEY loose their linkage of unbroken succession from Peter.

mcq72:

All I am saying, as the pope also said, man seems to appoint, and certainly some of the linkage is quite carnal, not of the Spirit.

The Church fixes her own problems internally. Once someone leaves, they are on their own.
mca72:

Furthermore, there is not unanimous consent of the fathers on papal succession, which is altogether something different. It is also not as readily biblical as say regular presbyter/ bishop appointments/ succession.

You’re reading back into history your own story line.

For example.

The “Orthodox” Church for example, wasn’t there in the beginning. THEY went into their own schism from the Catholic Church. And now the biggest church among them, The Russian Orthodox, has split from Istanbul Russians break from Constantinople / Istanbul.

There’s only one Church on the planet that traces back to Jesus and Peter in an unbroken line of succession. The Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

ONE Church among them had pre-eminent authority, the Church of Rome.

Again, that can be read several ways. It is this catholic church, this church that has apostolic bishop succession that had preeminent authority, that should be agreed with. So if you are in Rome or Alexandrea or Jerusalem or Antioch, go to the church, agree with the church, that has teaching and bishops linking to apostles. Stay away from gnostics/ heretics who have broken the linkage in apostolic teaching and succession.

Another view is that if He singles out Rome church, it is because of Peter and Paul laying their blood there. Was Paul a pope ? And the writing would not suggest that a bishop appointed by Peter and Paul in Rome would have jurisdiction over a bishop they also appointed say in Antioch or Corinth.
The pre eminence is one of honor.

The Church Irenaeus is taking so much time to describe, as having pre-eminent authority, the Church Irenaeus is giving succession of bishops, by name, from Peter, IN ROME.

Not any other city nor certainly the cities you mention.

 

[ziapueblo]

The “Orthodox” Church for example, wasn’t there in the beginning.

Really? I’m not sure the Catholic Church even agrees with you here.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As it says, one who knows… and refuses

It seems to me like this concept is similar to the legal concept of acting in “good faith”. The Catholic Church (very reasonably) holds “knowledge” in tension with “conscience” (from my reading and discussion with priests).

For example - I “know” that Zen Buddhism professes to be way to enlightenment and peace. I can’t in good faith believe this as I believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to peace.

Am I sideways here Steve? (BTW - welcome back - haven’t seen you around in a while )

The phrase

once one becomes knowledgeable of the truth or similar idea

fully presented,

AND

God doesn’t give grace to believe in nonsense theology

Then

one can’t plead ignorance any longer about not knowing the truth.

AND

They need to obey that truth

Example Deliberately missing Sunday Mass "after receiving knowledge of the truth"

here

Note: the language, sacrifice for sin and “blood of the covenant”. That language, was Spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper instituting the Eucharist. So we know what they are doing on"the Day" the Lord’s Day, Sunday, the Day He resurrected. They are celebrating the Eucharist. And look at the consequences for NOT doing that?

 

[mcq72]

When Jesus gave that example, and sequence, for dealing with arguments, who is the final source to go to? [The Church]

Correct. The church, if needed, as found in every city, by it’s bishop(s)…as in Judaizing argument that was taken to the church, at Jerusalem, presided by James.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus set up a hierarchy with Peter as the head.

Well, first amongst equals. To go from there and say the bishop of Rome can only be head over all is in my opinion, a most divisive development.

However, as one of the patriarch seats, much good was served.

 

[mcq72]

Not any other city nor certainly the cities you mention.

Correct, for economy of space and time, Iranaeus says he did not list accolades and succession of every other city church. Agree that Rome was an eminent example, due to Peter and Paul dying there, its size, and standing as capital of the known world, all roads leading to it etc.

It is not clear that Iranaeus references the church at Rome as preeminent authority or the church at large, having apostlic foundation in teaching snd succession that demand agreement by any church claiming to be Christian. Certainly no office of “pope” or " head bishop" or " vicar of Christ" was used.

Never the less understand the CC understanding/ reasoning of his writing, but just find it anachronistic. Certainly came to be used in development and justification of office.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When Jesus gave that example, and sequence, for dealing with arguments, who is the final source to go to? [The Church]

Correct. The church, if needed, as found in every city, by it’s bishop(s)…as in Judaizing argument that was taken to the church, at Jerusalem, presided by James.

And when there is no answer, as you recall, in that instance you bring up, who settled the argument? Peter

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jesus set up a hierarchy with Peter as the head.

Well, first amongst equals. To go from there and say the bishop of Rome can only be head over all is in my opinion, a most divisive development.

However, as one of the patriarch seats, much good was served.

A non sense term invented by those who didn’t like the authority Jesus set up.

If one is first all aren’t equal and if all are equal none can be first.

 

[lanman87]

And when there is no answer, as you recall, in that instance you bring up, who settled the argument? Peter

Actually James settled the argument.

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 “‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant[b] of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Peter and Barnabas related their experiences and made their arguments. James is the one who made the final judgement.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And when there is no answer, as you recall, in that instance you bring up, who settled the argument? Peter

Actually James settled the argument.

Actually James applied Peter’s decision on the matter, not to circumcise the newbies. THAT was the issue of the Judaizers, who originated from those who came from James .

lanman87:

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Therefore,

James follows Peter’s point, and won’t trouble newbies to the faith with being circumcised… which was Peter’s decision and James applied it as bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[lanman87]

Therefore,

James follows Peter’s point, and won’t trouble newbies to the faith with being circumcised… which was Peter’s decision and James applied it as bishop of Jerusalem.

James agreed with Peter, but it was James who made the final decision as to what to do. We can only speculate on what would have happened if James didn’t agree with Peter. But it is clear that Peter differed to James and considered the final decision to be James to make.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Therefore,

James follows Peter’s point, and won’t trouble newbies to the faith with being circumcised… which was Peter’s decision and James applied it as bishop of Jerusalem.

James agreed with Peter, but it was James who made the final decision as to what to do. We can only speculate on what would have happened if James didn’t agree with Peter. But it is clear that Peter differed to James and considered the final decision to be James to make.

This is a council that is meeting. The circumcision issue needed to be settled. The circumcision party was from James. Peter settled the issue. No circumcision needed. James, applied Peter’s decision.

 

[lanman87]

This is a council that is meeting. The circumcision issue needed to be settled. The circumcision party was from James. Peter settled the issue. No circumcision needed. James, applied Peter’s decision.

I see it as Peter acting as a witness and making an argument. He convinced James and James made the decision. James was the “Judge” of the matter. Hence, James saying " 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

If Peter was the ranking person in attendance then he didn’t need James to make a Judgement.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

This is a council that is meeting. The circumcision issue needed to be settled. The circumcision party was from James. Peter settled the issue. No circumcision needed. James, applied Peter’s decision.

I see it as Peter acting as a witness and making an argument. He convinced James and James made the decision. James was the “Judge” of the matter. Hence, James saying " 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

If Peter was the ranking person in attendance then he didn’t need James to make a Judgement.

James is the bishop of Jerusalem. Jesus made Peter over all the Church.

AND

James followed Peter’s lead