Protestants are ALSO brother and sisters in Christ. You seem to be reading too much into things.steve-b:
Is my quotation from the Pope wrong wherein he says not to convert the Orthodox because they are brothers and sisters in Christ?
Well then explain to me in simple words how:
turns into, “but it’s totally okay to convert them by evangelization.”
Re: the highlighted textsteve-b:
Well then explain to me in simple words how:
turns into, “but it’s totally okay to convert them by evangelization.”
’And I say unto thee, Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’: that is, on the faith of his confession .” (NPNF Vol. 10, p. 333)
Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock (Peter).Margaret_Ann:
’And I say unto thee, Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’: that is, on the faith of his confession .” (NPNF Vol. 10, p. 333)
“(Jesus) speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He may show His humanity. For He that has built His church upon Peter’s confession , and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…” (NPNF Vol. 10, p. 494)
“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven , who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence…” (NPNF Vol. XIV, p. 1)
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule , and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. And after that they had held their peace, James answered. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly; for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part…” (NPNF Vol. XI, p. 205, 207)
St. John Chrysostom On the Papacy
it may seem like a mixed bag. Anyways , for sure by 4-5 century we see strong development of papacy justification, as i posted earlier.
yes, this is but one context of Jewish key(s). i noted the other two, of which one is of teaching/knowledge, that leads to life and entrance into kingdom.( more than one key holder in other Matt. keys reference) Shebna had one key. Jesus gave “keys”.
Correct. We are told in scripture not all are apostles or teachers and prophets etc… Yet in my opinion we do not want
so is proselytize by force ? One source says the two words are synonyms. They both can be transitive and intransitive verbs.
There is no indication that key vs keys changes the level of one (Peter) having chief authority. If EVERY apostle had a “key” then all would be equal, no one would be over any other. Did Jesus set it up that way? Nope.steve-b:
yes, this is but one context of Jewish key(s). i noted the other two, of which one is of teaching/knowledge, that leads to life and entrance into kingdom.( more than one key holder in other Matt. keys reference) Shebna had one key. Jesus gave “keys”.
I don’t ignore Mt 18.
THAT isn’t how Peter’s succession is understood.
This was used in context of how Pope Francis used the terms Proselytizing vs evangelizingsteve-b:
so is proselytize by force ? One source says the two words are synonyms. They both can be transitive and intransitive verbs.
Jesus gave Peter and only Peter, the keys.steve-b:
only if you want to profane the leadership of the Holy Ghost. How times in Acts or epistles does scripture infer to the Spirit’s leading of the apostles?
IN UNITY is key… pardon the pun
Yes thank you…could not soften it up anymore than what I did…steve shoots hard but straight which i like, cause then I can also…but correct, dont want to be offensive…I feel very strongly on the biblical invisible leadership of ecclessia as some do on the visible , and of course we have both.
You keep saying a leader is over others, as if that is only characteristic.
While it is not the only characteristic, it seems to be the one characteristic that gets the biggest pushsteve-b:
You keep saying a leader is over others, as if that is only characteristic.
Have you ever heard or experienced being on a sports team, where the players choose a “captain”, to be the leader? All players on the team are equal and operate as one, and have a coach over them. The coach is very jurisdictional but the captain is more inspirational, leading by example thereby “strenghthening” the others.
“I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus”.
Was Paul his own guy, separate from everyone else? Nosteve-b:
“I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus”.
"Paul is setting the record straight,( to Judaizers) indicating that his visit was too short for him to have learned his gospel from Peter and James. Matthew Henry says Paul mentions these time frames and swears an oath regarding the truth of his words “so that it could not well be claimed that he was indebted to any other either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority to preach it.”
Paul Meets Peter and James | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
Perhaps, but because it gets the biggest push for by those for it. Peter never once pushed for it, nor do we see him being over the others. Leading yes. Over no.
That is extreme, just as going to Peter because he was the boss with instructions and commands is extreme view.
How does one absolutely separate the 2 ?steve-b:
Perhaps, but because it gets the biggest push for by those for it. Peter never once pushed for it, nor do we see him being over the others. Leading yes. Over no.
Yet It didn’t remain that way. Paul and Barnabas worked together in Antioch.steve-b:
That is extreme, just as going to Peter because he was the boss with instructions and commands is extreme view.
Do you have a problem with Paul being the Lord’s apostle for 3 plus years, without conferring with an apostle? If you are the Lord’s, and part of the body you are not your own guy, yet he did not consult with any of the apostles during tgat period, per his own words.