Agreed. They have set up a system that relies on Rome’s mediation. This is not even an inference of supremacy. Primacy? Sure.
Jon
- Status
Jon
Of course. You know me, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
But be aware of two things: 1) you and I agree that the ECF’s are not councils, and 2) the ECF’s could have had no idea of the nature of the Schism, and its results.
Jon
Well, to be accurate, we’ve also referenced the early councils. I think it should assumed that Catholics will and ought to reference things like the CCC, as it reflects your beliefs. By the same token, we would, too, reference our documents. Now, in neither case will one side be convinced of the other, but documents help each to present a case fuly understood by the other.
Sure, but what we think is certainly influenced by these things.
I think I mentioned Luke 22.
I will do my best.
Jon
C
concretecamper
Guest
can you prove it? Or are you saying it isn’t in scripture therefore it was not?
Is this the only dogmatically infallible statement in scripture? Sure, I think Peter was given a special revelation.
James was clearly in charge of the council. Is it not reasonable to think that everyone agreed with Peter? How does that add up to supremacy?
And that is the point. We recognize the primacy. We would like nothing more for that primacy to be restored to what it was in the early Church. We do not reject it. What we reject, based on scripture and Tradition is the claim of supremacy.
Jon
Lutherans hold that the Confessions are a right reflection of scripture. They, like any other Tradition or tradition, are not equal to scripture, but are a witness to its truth.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Wonderful. Could you walk us through the passages and provide your own exegesis to illustrate where I am in error?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, is the bolding the part you disagree with? Is everything NOT bolded acceptable?
I gotta be honest, Jon, your fellow churchmen are not contributing much to this thread.
But that’s okay…it was really for us, anyway.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Really?
I have a slant on Paul’s ministry I’ll run past you for fun. Well, mostly fun, but there’s a hint of truth here, too.
The Development of Saul of Tarsus
Acts 9:19-25
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. 23After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.
It is thought that after his escape, Paul travelled to Arabia and spent three years there in a self-imposed exile or extended retreat before returning to Israel. The narrative in Acts picks up the trail in the very next verse:
Acts 9:26-30
26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.
Clearly, Paul wasn’t having a lot of success in joining the Church in Jerusalem until Barnabas took him to the Apostles. I wonder if Paul was not something like Apollos at this point…preaching the gospel but making only limited progress. In fact, after a threat on Paul’s life, he was sent to Tarsus and disappears from the narrative of Acts for a second time.
At this point, we have to ask some honest questions: is there any evidence that Paul succeeded in building up the Church in Tarsus? Are there epistles from Paul to the believers in Tarsus written while he was travelling? None whatsoever. There is no record of Paul’s evangelism in Tarsus of at all. Finally, after a period of silence, Barnabas goes to Tarsus to enlist Paul’s help in Antioch where Barnabas was having great success.
Acts 11:25-30
25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. 27During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. 30This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
The Church in Antioch took up a collection for the Church in Jerusalem, and Saul is sent as a courier to deliver the gift to the elders in Jerusalem. Then:
Acts 12:25
25When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.
It seems that Barnabas and Saul weren’t even Bishops or elders at this point; they were sent wherever they were needed. And then we read the following:
Acts 13:1-3
1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Notice especially that Barnabas was either A) a prophet, B) a teacher or C) both in the Church at Antioch. As a sidebar, notice that one chapter earlier, Luke recorded the following:
Acts 12:16-17
16But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.
What was this other place that Peter left for? Antioch. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch followed by Evodius and Ignatius (who later recorded that the Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” in a letter he wrote in 107 AD). So, it is plausible that Peter is in Antioch at this time…and that’s where we find Barnabas and Saul.
Note further that the text tells us, “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”
Hmmm…Saul and Barnabas had hands laid on them in preparation for the work that the Holy Spirit called them to. There’s a lot going on here, so let’s itemize.
- Peter may have been among those who laid hands on Saul and Barnabas
- Barnabas is still considered a prophet and/or teacher at this point
- Paul is still called Saul here (a minor point perhaps)
- Although Saul had seen Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Holy Spirit called him apart for a separate ministry.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Here is a question: At what point did the prophet/teacher Barnabas become an Apostle? We know that Barnabas became an apostle because later we read:
Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
Notice that Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle after the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on him.
Another point: When did Saul become Paul? Of course, this may simply have been his Greek name from the time of his youth (since he was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus), but the first mention of it in scripture is here:
Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,
Again, this was AFTER the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3.
Well, as I said, there is a lot going on here, and perhaps I have read too much into these verses. I won’t be a stickler for Peter being present or the bit about Saul’s name change, but I will hold firm on the idea that the Church laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and subsequently we see changes in the way the scriptures refer to them both.
Paul was a nobody, an assistant to Barnabas at best, until the Church at Antioch laid hands on him. After that, he begins to rise to prominence.
That’s right, Paul was of little account in the Church prior to Acts 13:13. He had an experience of Jesus on the Damascus Road (Don’t all of us have stories about when we first believed?), then he went into Arabia on an extended personal retreat, and then Saul, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, went home to momma in Tarsus. Barnabas found him living in his parents’ basement and brought him out of obscurity. Only then was he ordained by the Church and set apart for greater ministry.
God called him, the Church ordained him, the Holy Spirit inspired him. Seems pretty straight forward to me…
Yet, even after all of this, Paul himself felt it necessary to double-check his understanding of the gospel with Peter.
Galatians 2:1-2
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
Paul FEARED that he might be in error; who did He check with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? The Bible Alone? Nope. He checked his gospel against the infallible, authoritative teaching of the living head of the Church, Peter the rock.
Can I get a witness? :clapping:
Do you hear me preaching to ya, church? :extrahappy:
Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
Notice that Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle after the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on him.
Another point: When did Saul become Paul? Of course, this may simply have been his Greek name from the time of his youth (since he was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus), but the first mention of it in scripture is here:
Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,
Again, this was AFTER the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3.
Well, as I said, there is a lot going on here, and perhaps I have read too much into these verses. I won’t be a stickler for Peter being present or the bit about Saul’s name change, but I will hold firm on the idea that the Church laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and subsequently we see changes in the way the scriptures refer to them both.
Paul was a nobody, an assistant to Barnabas at best, until the Church at Antioch laid hands on him. After that, he begins to rise to prominence.
That’s right, Paul was of little account in the Church prior to Acts 13:13. He had an experience of Jesus on the Damascus Road (Don’t all of us have stories about when we first believed?), then he went into Arabia on an extended personal retreat, and then Saul, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, went home to momma in Tarsus. Barnabas found him living in his parents’ basement and brought him out of obscurity. Only then was he ordained by the Church and set apart for greater ministry.
God called him, the Church ordained him, the Holy Spirit inspired him. Seems pretty straight forward to me…
Yet, even after all of this, Paul himself felt it necessary to double-check his understanding of the gospel with Peter.
Galatians 2:1-2
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
Paul FEARED that he might be in error; who did He check with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? The Bible Alone? Nope. He checked his gospel against the infallible, authoritative teaching of the living head of the Church, Peter the rock.
Can I get a witness? :clapping:
Do you hear me preaching to ya, church? :extrahappy:
C
concretecamper
Guest
Thank you…for clarification…are the “a” or “the” right reflection?
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
A
AveChriste11
Guest
So I’ve read most of this thread… and I’ve understood the Roman Catholic position much better on the role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome. It seems as if we’re all talking past each other, because we use terms such as universal jurisdiction, primacy, first among equals, etc. and we don’t understand what the other person means.
I for one don’t understand the concept of universal jurisdiction. I can accept that at one point when the Greek Church was still growing, and so were the Slavic churches – they were subject to Rome as that Church had not yet reached autocephaly or become self-governing. They submitted to Clement and others as their beloved Father, and grew steadily under him.
However when they grew enough to govern themselves, have a Bishop that ruled over them, even an Archbishop or Patriarch – why then do they have to submit to Rome? A lot of Orthodox I’ve talked to have compared the Roman Catholic understanding to a monarchy, and then the Reformation comes and eventually you have anarchy where there are no Bishops or priests and it’s just “me and Jesus”.
This seems to sum up Cyprian’s view. “Contrary to Rome, Cyprian, as Origen, believed that all bishops in accordance to the true faith have the honor and authority of Peter. Cyprian viewed all bishops as Peter’s successors. Thus Cyprian understanding of Matthew 16:18 is contrary to Rome. He indeed contended that Peter is the rock to which Christ built his Church, thus affirming his primacy of honour but quite the contrary to the doctrines of Rome, he neither view Peter as the only rock nor understood him to be the one of true and proper jurisdiction.” withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/cyprian-contra-roman-catholics-mathew-1618-exposition/
So if Cyprian’s understanding is correct, which is very similar to what the Orthodox hold today – then where do you get some of the current understandings? I can grasp that the Roman Church did not just come up with this stuff, but these ideas have been being formulated for a very long time.
I personally am not really Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant but I do see myself as a Christian. I acknowledge the seven ecumenical councils and the necessity of Holy Tradition, how Scripture does not interpret itself except in light of the way the writers intended. They passed that understanding on to their successors which became the Fathers of the Church, both East and West.
It seems that over time, and due to politics we’ve become attached to semantics and to what certain words mean or don’t mean. Thus our collective understanding, even of what a first century Father said might be different between an Eastern Orthodox and a Roman Catholic and therefore we continue to talk past each other while reading the same Father, and the same text.
I for one don’t understand the concept of universal jurisdiction. I can accept that at one point when the Greek Church was still growing, and so were the Slavic churches – they were subject to Rome as that Church had not yet reached autocephaly or become self-governing. They submitted to Clement and others as their beloved Father, and grew steadily under him.
However when they grew enough to govern themselves, have a Bishop that ruled over them, even an Archbishop or Patriarch – why then do they have to submit to Rome? A lot of Orthodox I’ve talked to have compared the Roman Catholic understanding to a monarchy, and then the Reformation comes and eventually you have anarchy where there are no Bishops or priests and it’s just “me and Jesus”.
This seems to sum up Cyprian’s view. “Contrary to Rome, Cyprian, as Origen, believed that all bishops in accordance to the true faith have the honor and authority of Peter. Cyprian viewed all bishops as Peter’s successors. Thus Cyprian understanding of Matthew 16:18 is contrary to Rome. He indeed contended that Peter is the rock to which Christ built his Church, thus affirming his primacy of honour but quite the contrary to the doctrines of Rome, he neither view Peter as the only rock nor understood him to be the one of true and proper jurisdiction.” withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/cyprian-contra-roman-catholics-mathew-1618-exposition/
So if Cyprian’s understanding is correct, which is very similar to what the Orthodox hold today – then where do you get some of the current understandings? I can grasp that the Roman Church did not just come up with this stuff, but these ideas have been being formulated for a very long time.
I personally am not really Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant but I do see myself as a Christian. I acknowledge the seven ecumenical councils and the necessity of Holy Tradition, how Scripture does not interpret itself except in light of the way the writers intended. They passed that understanding on to their successors which became the Fathers of the Church, both East and West.
It seems that over time, and due to politics we’ve become attached to semantics and to what certain words mean or don’t mean. Thus our collective understanding, even of what a first century Father said might be different between an Eastern Orthodox and a Roman Catholic and therefore we continue to talk past each other while reading the same Father, and the same text.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A monarchy? You get a cookie.
Luke 22:29-30
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The Church IS a monarchy.
B
Bballer32
Guest
How is it not??
A
AveChriste11
Guest
But that kingdom is not of this world. There’s another verse in scripture which confuses me… "When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:24-28, NIV)A monarchy? You get a cookie.
Luke 22:29-30
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The Church IS a monarchy.
So how is this talking about a monarchy? The principle of collegiality was definitely at work in the early Church. They all came together, and discussed about different subjects, and under inspiration together created statements of faith saying “This is what We believe” through the Creeds. None of them were better than another, they all held equal spiritual authority.
I always imagined them getting together at a Council going, “this is how I understood it and what was passed down to me from the one I succeeded”. And then another Bishop going “Yes I agree! But I don’t understand what you mean by Theotokos…” (God-bearer)
So what is this saying about the role of the Pope from your understanding?
J
jlhargus
Guest
mark
C
concretecamper
Guest
Wow…I am putting together info for a thread to show the Church fathers believed in the primacy of the pope and Cyprian is a star! He certainly believed and taught the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Where did you get your information?
A
AveChriste11
Guest
Hi feel free to follow that website link which I posted as it explains more. But this is something I’ve been hearing time and again, that all of the Bishops are equal to Peter. Therefore where the Bishop is, there is Peter. That’s it’s not exclusively referring to the Roman Pope. The Eastern Christians seem to follow this understanding as well…
- Status