S
steve-b
Guest
Then
IOW, do as St Francis of Assisi taught, go out and preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary use words.
IOW actions speak louder than words.
Last edited:
- Status
IOW, do as St Francis of Assisi taught, go out and preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary use words.
IOW actions speak louder than words.
M
Michael16
Guest
@steve-b, your quote of Saint Francis of Assisi is basically what I’m doing.
I’m living my life as faithfully as I can and answer questions as they arise.
I’m living my life as faithfully as I can and answer questions as they arise.
M
mcq72
Guest
As Augustine and Chrysostom and others point out, twas because Peter was only one to thrice deny the Lord. Indeed it was a restorative conversation, for Peter had gone back to fishing fish. All the apostles were to fish men, God’s called, and nurture those Christ had given them.
You can see an appointment back to being a pope. I see an reestablishing of an apostle, even the leader of the other “eleven” apostles.( lead as in to lead , go ahead of but not rule over).
As to “rock”, again Revelation gives no “picture” of a pyramidal structure, rather side by side all the apostles, with Christ the chief cornerstone. Upon those we are all living stones also, as Peter points out.
Merry Christmas
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
It takes all kinds of approaches, and not sure one tactic fits all, a time for everything…of course all governed by humility and charity.
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
If you say so.
ZP
ZP
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
Your point of a restorative conversation is interesting.
You must remember, though: All of the Apostles abandoned Jesus at His arrest and Passion.
If the conversation Our Lord had with Saint Peter was merely restoring him to his Apostleship, why didn’t He say similar words to all the others?
No.
Saint Peter was singled out by Our Lord and was then commissioned to feed and tend Our Lord’s sheep.
Ergo: Saint Peter is the Head and leader of the Church. Not merely the front runner.
Your point of a restorative conversation is interesting.
You must remember, though: All of the Apostles abandoned Jesus at His arrest and Passion.
If the conversation Our Lord had with Saint Peter was merely restoring him to his Apostleship, why didn’t He say similar words to all the others?
No.
Saint Peter was singled out by Our Lord and was then commissioned to feed and tend Our Lord’s sheep.
Ergo: Saint Peter is the Head and leader of the Church. Not merely the front runner.
S
steve-b
Guest
God knew everything about Peter THEN, before the foundation of the world. From beginning to end, before anything was created. In God, There are no surprises. It’s not like Peter denies Jesus 3 times and God says OH SHOOT, I didn’t see THAT one coming. I guess I better go to plan B.Michael16:
As Augustine and Chrysostom and others point out, twas because Peter was only one to thrice deny the Lord. Indeed it was a restorative conversation, for Peter had gone back to fishing fish. All the apostles were to fish men, God’s called, and nurture those Christ had given them.
Point being,
People can and will deny truth. The choice to obey or disobey is there. And excuses and phony reasons for disobeying abound.
However
since we are told by Jesus, with all things considered, that in the end, only a few are saved whether described HERE or HERE because of HERE
And God knows that from the beginning, before He created all that is.
THEN
I think as an observation, it’s why Paul said the following to Bp Titus in this way.
Titus 3:10-11 “As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν , after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted ἐξέστραπται and sinful; he is self-condemned αὐτοκατάκριτος .”
ergo Paul didn’t write more than 2 letters to anyone.
It’s showing Peter didn’t lose what was given to him.
Merry Christmas
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
I’m not the author of any source I quoted
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I know, and you will believe them with a Roman Catholic lens and I myself, with an Eastern one :+1:t3:
Merry Christmas!
Christ is born! Glorify Him!
ZP
I find this interesting since you seem to be the master a “sidestepping” others on this forum when you are asked a question.
Merry Christmas!
Christ is born! Glorify Him!
ZP
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
It’s no use confronting him. As you can see with yourself (a fellow Roman Catholic) as well as with others, he will choose to be in conflict with you. It will go on for months if you let it.
ZP
M
mcq72
Guest
Sorry if you took it as such…agree he did not lose anything…that is the essence of restoration…in fact he just be improved upon a bit probably
And yet to forgive an offense or offender 7 x 70?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, as prophesied they did depart Jesus after the arrest, save Peter, who followed to the gates of His next arrest holding. The others left out of self preservation, and really in accordance with God’s will, to not impede the cross that Christ must bear. Yet Peter in trying to be strong ( strong headed?) and not “leave”, ended up doing worse, and denying the Lord before the world, and that thrice even emphatically. I would think this was far worse than what others did.
Well, what does head mean or leader?
How about supreme ruler, only vicar of Christ, all other authorities and souls subject to him? Others have put it even more forcefully.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
People often mistake the Holy Father as some sort of divine right Emperor over the Church.
I understand the Pope more like a pastor of the whole Church. A shepherd, guide and teacher. A vicar of Christ who serves the Church by guiding her, shepherding her and teaching her.
People often mistake the Holy Father as some sort of divine right Emperor over the Church.
I understand the Pope more like a pastor of the whole Church. A shepherd, guide and teacher. A vicar of Christ who serves the Church by guiding her, shepherding her and teaching her.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Of course, and I assume you know this, Pope Innocent I was not the only bishop Chrysostom appealed to. He also appealed to Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquilea. Should we not take that into account?
There is a very well written, fair and balanced article by Very Rev John H Erickson, former Dean of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary here in the United States, on this subject being discussed. I would post it but I’m not sure you would look at it, which is funny because you are so adamant about people reading what you post.
ZP
L
lanman87
Guest
I would be interested in reading it…
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
It’s a good read. Although the author is Orthodox, I believe he repeated Rome fairly.
https://www.svots.edu/content/chalcedon-canon-28-yesterday-and-today
ZP
https://www.svots.edu/content/chalcedon-canon-28-yesterday-and-today
ZP
M
Michael16
Guest
@ziapueblo,
It was an interesting read, ZP. Thank you for posting it.
I have some points, though.
1: What were the Roman prerogatives prior to Chalcedon canon 28?
2: Did Constantinople attempt to become an Eastern papacy?
3: When Saint John Chrysostom was reinstated; was it mainly Rome’s doing?
4: Fr Erickson stated that honor isn’t merely social benefit without actual power in that honor. To me, that implies there was actual juridical authority that went with place of honor and precedence.
5: In my understanding of the Pope as head of the college of bishops; is that the Pope is still the bishop of Rome but also it’s head due to authority derived from being the Successor of Saint Peter. Thus, the Holy Father is first among the bishops.
It was an interesting read, ZP. Thank you for posting it.
I have some points, though.
1: What were the Roman prerogatives prior to Chalcedon canon 28?
2: Did Constantinople attempt to become an Eastern papacy?
3: When Saint John Chrysostom was reinstated; was it mainly Rome’s doing?
4: Fr Erickson stated that honor isn’t merely social benefit without actual power in that honor. To me, that implies there was actual juridical authority that went with place of honor and precedence.
5: In my understanding of the Pope as head of the college of bishops; is that the Pope is still the bishop of Rome but also it’s head due to authority derived from being the Successor of Saint Peter. Thus, the Holy Father is first among the bishops.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
Thank you.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I’ll answer what I know and leave the rest to others while I do some research.
William Stephans, Church historian, writes in his book Saint Chrysostom: His life and times:
“The Patriarch of the Eastern Rome appeals to the great bishops of the West, as the champions of an ecclesiastical discipline which he confesses himself unable to enforce, or to see any prospect of establishing. No jealousy is entertained of the Patriarch of the Old Rome by the Patriarch of the New Rome. The interference of Innocent is courted, a certain primacy is accorded him, but at the same time he is not addressed as a supreme arbitrator; assistance and sympathy are solicited from him as from an elder brother, and two other prelates of Italy are joint recipients with him of the appeal.”
(pg. 349-50)
St John Chrysostom dies in exile, so the appeal to Rome, as well as the other two Bishops, were of no avail.
ZP
St John Chrysostom wrote appeals to three Western Bishops: Innocent I Bishop of Rome, Venerius Bishop of Milan and Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia.
William Stephans, Church historian, writes in his book Saint Chrysostom: His life and times:
“The Patriarch of the Eastern Rome appeals to the great bishops of the West, as the champions of an ecclesiastical discipline which he confesses himself unable to enforce, or to see any prospect of establishing. No jealousy is entertained of the Patriarch of the Old Rome by the Patriarch of the New Rome. The interference of Innocent is courted, a certain primacy is accorded him, but at the same time he is not addressed as a supreme arbitrator; assistance and sympathy are solicited from him as from an elder brother, and two other prelates of Italy are joint recipients with him of the appeal.”
(pg. 349-50)
St John Chrysostom dies in exile, so the appeal to Rome, as well as the other two Bishops, were of no avail.
Sounds no different then the Ravenna and Chieti documents.
And the Orthodox do not disagree with this. Again, the issue is supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
Jesus also saidsteve-b:
And yet to forgive an offense or offender 7 x 70?
Lk 17:3-4
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him. "
The sequence is
someone sins against you then rebuke him.
But Jesus didn’t stop there. He continues with ifs as a condition for forgiveness.
If he repents… then forgive him…
So
In reverse, we die and don’t ask for forgiveness before we die. Does God automatically forgive us? If you say yes, then you’re saying there is no hell for ANYONE.
Last edited:
- Status