B
benjohnson
Guest
- I would expect to see Orthodox Bishops in any ecumenical council, to say nothing of the Oriental and Coptic churches.
- Thank for for the encouragement! I too do not wish to meet in the ‘mushy middle’
- Status
B
benjohnson
Guest
As I understand, the First Vatican Council:
papalencyclicals.net/Coun…lessed%20Peter
We teach and declare that,
according to the gospel evidence,
a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
was immediately and directly
promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
conferred on him by Christ the lord.
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Thank you for your reply. It is an interesting foray into scripture and universal jurisdiction.The Royal Steward and Universal Jurisdiction
Matthew 24:45-47
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
In this parable, Jesus uses the example of a servant who is put in charge of ALL his master’s possessions, and it indicates for us the full scope of authority or jurisdiction that applies to the royal steward of the kingdom. Jesus could have easily worded His parable differently if He intended for us to draw another understanding, but He did not place limits on the jurisdiction of the faithful steward. There were precedents for this from the history of the Jewish people.
Genesis 41:39-44, 46
39 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one so discerning and wise as you. 40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.”
41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.
44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.” 46 And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt."
What in all of Egypt was Joseph, as the royal steward of Pharaoh’s household, NOT ultimately responsible for? Nothing. Joseph had authority second only to Pharaoh himself in every inch and every aspect of Egypt. Is there a parallel in Israel? Let’s look at Isaiah 22 which provides the parallel for Jesus’ appointment of Peter:
Isaiah 22:15-23
15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.* 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
In this passage, we see that one steward, Shebna, has displeased God and is replaced by another, Eliakim. Eliakim receives the “key of the house of David” - yet, by this time, David has been dead for 200 years! Thus, we learn that the office of royal steward continued when a king died as well as when an individual steward left the office.
Sound familiar? Jesus, our eternal king, has inherited the throne of David through his relationship with His earthly father, Joseph. As king, Jesus names his own royal steward with words that have much in common with the passage from Isaiah:
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
It’s all there, the keys, the binding (shutting), the loosing (opening), the “whatever” which indicates that Peter’s authority extends without bounds.
Like Joseph in Pharaoh’s kingdom, like Eliakim in the Davidic kingdom, like the servant in Jesus’ parable, the steward of the house enjoys the full authority over all of the master’s domain.
That is universal jurisdiction.
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Alas, the link does not work. Perhaps you can reproduce the URL without the ellipses points?
B
benjohnson
Guest
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Thank you. I’ve got it. Session 4, Chapter 2, right?
B
benjohnson
Guest
And really specifically Chapter 3, Part 2. Part 9 is where disagreeing gets you into hot water so to speak.
P
pablope
Guest
It was first revealed to him, in Acts, prior to the Acts 15 council.
I would strongly differ. Reading through the thread I see people defending the position on universal jurisdiction that their communion holds. This is not based on pride, necessarily, but on sincere belief, looking at scripture, the councils and ECF’s, etc. I think to boil down to simply pride (on the part of the other guys?) seems to me to make light of beliefs.
From this Lutheran’s perspective: the very nature of a claim of universal jurisdiction without at least a truly ecumenical council to approve of it is doctrinally unsound. While I think there are some things I would “overlook”, a question I have is the reverse: are there things the Vatican would or could overlook for the sake of unity?
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
Peter did act alone when he interpreted the scriptures to show that Judas’ office needed to be filled.
Peter did act alone when he baptized the household of Cornelius which was a really, really big deal in the eyes of the Jews who made up the early Church.
But now, a few words about Acts 15.
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
And may I point out, what James said…
20but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[e] and from blood. 21 For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”
Is akin to a new dieterary law, a matter of discipline. This is not anymore a universal rule of the Church today.
See what Paul writes about this later:
in 1Cor8:
8 “Food will not bring us close to God.”[a] We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
Meaning…what James added is a disciplinary requirement…not a doctrine.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Would you mind answering the question I raised about what the Pope(s) has specifically done that causes such ire?
Well, the Lutheran confessions mention 3 things specifically,
- He claims supremacy of the entire Church.
- He claims that by divine right he holds both control of the Church and government
- He claims that salvation comes from being in communion with him.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
interesting…so nothing on doctrines that are a at stumbling block?
I mean, from what I have read on this forum, the LCMS are close to RCC beliefs except for Mary (assumption, Queen) and the papacy. Is this accurate? I guess my question is, are all the doctrinal issues resolvable except for the papacy?
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Thank you for an interesting post and a perspective on Acts 15 that I had not previously seen or considered.
Peter did act alone when he interpreted the scriptures to show that Judas’ office needed to be filled.
Peter did act alone when he baptized the household of Cornelius which was a really, really big deal in the eyes of the Jews who made up the early Church.
But now, a few words about Acts 15.
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
Acts 15:10-11
“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
C
concretecamper
Guest
from Vatican I
"What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
"What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yeah, I know, Jon. That’s why I started the thread. :yup:
The principles of universal jurisdiction can be found in scripture. Sure, it took awhile to develop (though my arguments from the Fathers - still to come! - may suggest that they understood much earlier than you might be happy to hear), but lots of doctrines that you ARE comfortable with took time to develop thoroughly.
What’s that???
You want a preview? Well…just a peek…
John Chrysostom
He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
M
MoreCoffee
Guest
Interesting quote. I have seen it before but I have not read the whole homily yet. I ought to search for the whole thing and read it.
By the way, the :thankyou: icon is amusing
C
concretecamper
Guest
I came across this summary of Chalcedon…looks like Rome is in charge to me.
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON - 451 A.D.
Excerpt from the Council of Chalcedon
The Council of Chalcedon “has accepted the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church in Alexandria, to Nestorius and to the Orientals, as being well-suited to refuting Nestorius’s mad folly and to providing an interpretation for those who in their religious zeal might desire understanding of the saving creed.”.
INTRODUCTION
It was the emperor Marcian who, after the “robber” council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate. Moreover, the provinces of the West were being laid waste by Attila’s invasions. But before the pope’s view became known, the emperor Marcian had, by an edict of 17 May 451, convoked the council for 1 September 451. Although the pope was displeased, he sent legates: Paschasinus bishop of Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian of Cos. No doubt Leo thought that the council would cause people to leave the church and go into schism. So he wanted it to be postponed for a time, and he implored the emperor that the faith handed down from ancient times should not become the subject of debate. The only business should be the restoration of the exiled bishops to their former positions.
The council was convoked at Nicaea but later transferred to Chalcedon, so as to be close to Constantinople and the emperor. It began on 8 October 451. The legates Paschasinus, Bishop Lucentius and the priest Boniface presided, while Julian of Cos sat among the bishops. By their side were the imperial commissars and those serving on the Senate, whose responsibility was simply to keep order in the council’s deliberations.
The lists we have of those present are unsatisfactory. According to Leo there were 600 bishops at the council, whereas according to a letter to him there were 500.
The “Definition of the faith” was passed at the council’s fifth session, and was solemnly promulgated at the sixth session in the presence of the emperor and the imperial authorities. The formula accepted in the decree is: Christ is one in two natures. This is in agreement with Leo’s letter to Flavian of Constantinople, and Leo’s letter is expressly mentioned in the Definition of the faith.
The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons (it is unclear at which session).
What is usually called canon 28 (on the honour to be accorded the see of Constantinople) is in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session. It was rejected by the Roman legates.
In the ancient Greek collections, canons 29 and 30 are also attributed to the council: canon 29 is an extract from the minutes of the 19th session; and canon 30 is an extract from the minutes of the 4th session.
Because of canon 28, which the Roman legates had opposed, the emperor Marcian and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, sought approval for the council from the pope. This is clear from a letter of Anatolius which tries to defend the canon, and especially from a letter of Marcian which explicitly requests confirmation. Because heretics were misinterpreting his withholding approval, the pope ratified the doctrinal decrees on 21 March 453, but rejected canon 28 since it ran counter to the canons of Nicaea and to the privileges of particular churches.
The imperial promulgation was made by Emperor Marcian in 4 edicts of February 452.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
C
concretecamper
Guest
I also came across this summary: sounds like Rome is in charge to me. Can you refute any claims in this summary or the earlier one on Chalcedon?
THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE : 680-681 A. D.
INTRODUCTION
To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned. Legates of the pope took this profession to Constantinople, arriving at the beginning of September 680.
On 10 September 680 the emperor issued an edict to Patriarch George of Constantinople, ordering a council of bishops to be convoked. The council assembled on 7 November in the hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople. It immediately called itself an ecumenical council. There were 18 sessions, at the first eleven of which the emperor presided.
In the 8th session, on 7 March 681, the council adopted the teaching of Pope Agatho in condemnation of Monothelitism. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was one of the few who refused his assent; he was deposed in the 12th session.
The doctrinal conclusions of the council were defined in the 17th session and promulgated in the 18th and last session on 16 September 681. The acts of the council, signed both by 174 fathers and finally by the emperor himself, were sent to Pope Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho, and he, when he had approved them, ordered them to be translated into Latin and to be signed by all the bishops of the west. Constantine IV, however, promulgated the decrees of the council in all parts of the empire by imperial edict. The council did not debate church discipline and did not establish any disciplinary cannons.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
- Status