Unstructured Thread...

[2ndGen]

I have not the time to respond to your many errors in this post, but I would like to know what you mean by varied opinions.

In other words, “I’ll tell you you’re wrong, refuse to prove it, then demand that you answer my questions!”

Welcome to The Club A!

 

[2ndGen]

**"…I would like to know what you mean by varied opinions."
**
For one thing, I mean that the Orthodox Churches have a checkered past as to their own “orthodoxy.” There have been times when nearly all of the Eastern Sees have slipped into heresy, deposed their bishops, rejected saintly Fathers of the Church, and then turned to Rome to sort out the mess. That is what I mean from an historical perspective - many voices come to us from the East through the centuries and they are not at all united in orthodoxy. But in our own time, and more to the point, I am referring to the ecumenical dialog where the Orthodox Churches do not speak unanimously and thus have “varied opinions” as to the precise meaning of things like “Roman primacy” for instance, or how to approach the question of the Protestant churches, or how to deal with the “filoque” controversy. When in dialog with the Orthodox the Catholic Church speaks with “one voice” through the See of Peter. However, when we meet the Orthodox to discuss doctrinal disputes we find it necessary to confront each Patriarch, each bishop of each diocese. There are “varied opinions” out there on many issues within the Orthodox Churches. No two Orthodox Churches view things exactly the same. The Orthodox have rejected the idea of Peter’s See settling such disputes. There is no mechanism within the Orthodox communion to sort out which opinion is correct. That is why I say that “Peter” is absent from the Orthodox communion. It is a willful rejection of what Peter stood for in the ancient Church - he stood for a unity of bishops under the primacy of honor granted to Peter.
Thomas

Just like Saint Andrew is the “little” brother of Saint Peter,
it seems that we serve the same relatinship to our own little brothers.

 

[2ndGen]

yes. i quite understand that. but as Jesus was presecuted so as his church and we are in his church we must accept that. we must pick up our crosses and follow him. it will be like this until He comes again.
peace

W,

Know why I chose Peter as my confirmation name?

Because Peter was by far the most vocal and the one who most questioned Jesus and who was the hungriest of The Apostles.

The others each had their traits that served some purpose in The Church, but Peter had that something special that made him stand apart from the rest. Maybe it was because he just had natural leadership abilities (being a businessman and all with his own crew of workers).

Plus, Matthew 16:18 was where it was cemented for me that The Catholic Church “is” The Church that Jesus Christ founded and that Simon is that Peter, excuse me, mixing up my Greek derivitive and my English here…I meant to say “that Rock” that Jesus built His Church upon.

As for our being attacked?

I’m going to get sooo many extra years in Purgatory for all the times I go overboard in defending The Church.

The one thing I hate most about when someone attacks The Church or begins to revive ancient history in an attempt to discredit The Bride of Christ is that they completely ignore the contributions of The Church to mankind (The Saints, The Doctrines of Salvation, Justification, The Holy Bible, Christian History and Tradition, etc…).

They attempt to hijack our faith, claim it their own, then spit on the source of their beliefs.

I always said, on my way to Purgatory (if I make it), when I’m in Heaven, I’ll get high fives from Saints like Augustine and Peter and Paul, the it’ll be off to do my time.

 

[wisdomseeker]

W,

Know why I chose Peter as my confirmation name?

Because Peter was by far the most vocal and the one who most questioned Jesus and who was the hungriest of The Apostles.

The others each had their traits that served some purpose in The Church, but Peter had that something special that made him stand apart from the rest. Maybe it was because he just had natural leadership abilities (being a businessman and all with his own crew of workers).

Plus, Matthew 16:18 was where it was cemented for me that The Catholic Church “is” The Church that Jesus Christ founded and that Simon is that Peter, excuse me, mixing up my Greek derivitive and my English here…I meant to say “that Rock” that Jesus built His Church upon.

As for our being attacked?

I’m going to get sooo many extra years in Purgatory for all the times I go overboard in defending The Church.

The one thing I hate most about when someone attacks The Church or begins to revive ancient history in an attempt to discredit The Bride of Christ is that they completely ignore the contributions of The Church to mankind (The Saints, The Doctrines of Salvation, Justification, The Holy Bible, Christian History and Tradition, etc…).

They attempt to hijack our faith, claim it their own, then spit on the source of their beliefs.

I always said, on my way to Purgatory (if I make it), when I’m in Heaven, I’ll get high fives from Saints like Augustine and Peter and Paul, the it’ll be off to do my time.

it is all worth it. sometimes i feel the same way.

 

[2ndGen]

it is all worth it. sometimes i feel the same way.

Well, if we bump into each other there, I’ll bring a Monopoly Game!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”

“pope” is literally Greek for “father”

In fact, the word “pope” appears hundreds of times in The New Testament.

The Apostles (especially Paul) refer to themselves as “popes” to their disciples.

Actually, the word is not papas (father, pope) but pater.

The first bishop to be given the title Pope was the successor of that son St. Mark: Pope of Alexandria was the first to be called by the title. Rome didn’t adopt it until later.

Eusebius records an early example of this (H.E. VII, 7.4) 4. Pope St. Dionysis supports his practice of rebaptizing heretics “Then after saying some things concerning all the heresies he adds: “I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father (πάπα “pope”) Heraclas (232-249)”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.viii.html

]However, Peter is The “pope” because he is the Prime Apostle…the leader as chosen by Jesus Christ in John 21 of The Lambs

Here St. Peter is being restored after denying his Lord three times.

(The Lambs being The Apostles because they too would be slaughtered as lambs for His Gospel…The Disciples are the sheep mentioned in John 21, not sacrificed, but followers, the flock). Peter is commissioned to shephard Jesus’ sheep and to lead and nurture His lambs.

Problem with this interpretation is the one “sheep” “whom Jesus loved” wasn’t slaughtered, and was given His mother. And St. Peter didn’t do the gentile lambs any good in Galatians.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Actually, the word is not papas (father, pope) but pater.

The first bishop to be given the title Pope was the successor of that son St. Mark: Pope of Alexandria was the first to be called by the title. Rome didn’t adopt it until later.

Eusebius records an early example of this (H.E. VII, 7.4) 4. Pope St. Dionysis supports his practice of rebaptizing heretics “Then after saying some things concerning all the heresies he adds: “I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father (πάπα “pope”) Heraclas (232-249)”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.viii.html

Here St. Peter is being restored after denying his Lord three times.

Problem with this interpretation is the one “sheep” “whom Jesus loved” wasn’t slaughtered, and was given His mother. And St. Peter didn’t do the gentile lambs any good in Galatians.

what are you talking about? there was one church. not churches meaning we were one. there was no separation like now back then.

 

[2ndGen]

Actually, the word is not papas (father, pope) but pater.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Now, your “expanding” on terms.

If your defense is that a term that doesn’t exist in the Bible cannot be believed, then you’ll have to throw out the following words and terms of your Christian vocabulary because they were never mentioned in The Holy Bible:

You just said

Well, he referred to himself a “pope” literally in The Bible.

:bigyikes:

and

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”

“pope” is literally Greek for “father”

In fact, the word “pope” appears hundreds of times in The New Testament.

The Apostles (especially Paul) refer to themselves as “popes” to their disciples.

Are you now admitting, that despite your first claims that 1) not only does the word “pope” not appear “hundreds of times” in the NT, the term doesn’t appear in the Bible at all, 2) St. Peter does NOT use the term to refer to himself literally in the Bible :bigyikes: 3) although pope means father (actually daddy), it is not the term used in the Bible, 4) The Apostles (includng Paul) do not refer themselves as “popes” to their disciples.

Bible

Holy Bible

Trinity

Rapture

I could say “where does the term Orthodox Church” doesn’t exist in the Bible so therefore is “unbiblical” or not worthy to be believed in.

Oh, I’m afraid answers packaged for Protestants aren’t gonna work against the Orthodox.

Mickey correctly pointed out (and you seem to admit) your errors on the term appearing in the Bible, and further asked you to point out when the term first appears for the bishop of Rome, as he has proven that your initial claim (in the Bible) is unfounded. A reasonable request.

Now, we know that Peter was chosen to lead The Church by Jesus and we know that He was in Rome.

He was in Jerusalem and Antioch first. And yes, that IS in the Bible.

Therefore, wherever Peter was, there was the center of The Church.

We know from Galatians that when the question of gentile believers came up, St. Peter was in Antioch. So did the Church gather around Peter to discuss the matter there? NO! St. Paul goes to Jerusalem (i.e. somewhere where St. Peter is NOT), "to the apostles [bishops] and elders [priests] [no Peter or pope] concerning this issue to have the CHURCH decide the matter.

This belief is first documented in 110 Ad.

Details on the 110 Ad. claim. What document?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

First of all, I love The Orthodox (literally, my girlfriend is Orthodox! ).

I hope you speak better to her.

No attack, just an example of the insistance of terms or words being “in” The Bible to be believed.

You’re the one insisting on a word being in the Bible (which isn’t). Not us.

2ndly, only “one” Apostle was chosen to lead The Apostles and The Church…John 21.

Only one denied Christ (actually, if you look at the 136 times (or what is the exact number, I forget) Peter is mentioned in the NT, a number made much of in apologia for the papacy of Rome, the majority of those references refer to St. Peter’s denial of Christ).

And he had to be restored…John 21.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you’re going to “correct” people who are wrong, make sure that you are “perfect” in your correction lest ye be corrected:

The exact word for “father” is “pateras” according to the Greek Translation Dictionary.
kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Greek has undergone some restructuring the past 2,000 years.

If your girl friend prays in Greek, ask her to say the Our Father, and tell us what you hear.

πάτερ is the ancient word (i.e. the one in the NT). It corresponds exactly to your Latin pater (which gives rise to your padre: notice how they’re also different after a millenium?).

As a consonantal stem, its inflection has been reformulated on the accusative, and is NOW pateras (a similar process gave you padre).
Check out Strong’s concordance (and Bauer)
strongsnumbers.com/greek/3962.htm

Now, let’s see what “pope” means…
pope = πάπας
papas

When it’s used as “papas” (which in modern Greek means “priest” or “pope”), one has to refer to the original “Koine” Greek in which The New Testament is written.

In the Koine, papas means “father” and “pope”.
In Spanish, (my native language), it means father (papa).
My native Greek speaking friend taught me this (the Greek part).

All very well and nice, but irrelevant. The word doesn’t appear in the NT.

The first time anyone referrred to themselves as “popes” was in The New Testament. If you were to read it in Koine, everywhere they say “father” to the disciples, they are literally saying “pope”.

We went over this. The word papas doesn’t appear in the NT, so it can’t be the first time. I can read the Koine: it’s not there, so they can’t be “literally” saying “pope.”

Why do you “divide” Jesus’ words?

Divide what? Call to repentence, repentence, restoration. Where’s the division?

To “what” is Peter being restored when Jesus tells him to feed His lambs and to feed and tend His sheep?

His place among the twelve.

All the Apostles (except John who Peter would later point out as him “not” being martyred at the end of John 21) abandoned Jesus. Why was only Peter restored?

They fled in silence. St. Peter was the only to to affirmatively deny Christ (in your canons only excommunication, I believe one has to make an afffirmative denial of the faith, not just fall away, to be excommunicated).

To what position was he restored to that none of the other Apostles drew this special attention from Jesus (again as He did in Matthew 16:18)?

None of them got themselves affirmatively excommunicated.

What about the special attention from Jesus in Matthew 16:23?

Peter specifically pointed John out at the end of John 21 as to what would become of him as if He knew that John wouldn’t be martyred separating him from The Lambs of Jesus (again, just as He was in Matthew 16, Peter was privy to special information that none of the other Disciples were given…direct guidance by God!).

John 21:
20Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So St. Peter points out the special position of St. John, and Christ confirms it. Look at verse 23 again. Sounds like St. John is being singled out.

 

[Namesake]

Really? Where?

What are ya’all going to cook for Fat Tuesday? Do Catholics have any really good recipes?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, but it seems that you gain a convenient amnesia when you forgot this that was also in John 21:

15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Feed His lambs, was to nurture The Apostles who (again) would go on to be slaughtered as lambs like Jesus was in martyrdom to His Gospel (except for John who was chosen to care for Mary and spared because he stood with Christ until the end).

Tend His sheep, was to guide the disciples. The disciples follow the Good Shephard who was Christ. Here, Peter was told to be the one to shephard Jesus’ flock once Jesus was gone.

Feed His sheep, was to nurture them, to give them substanance so that they (the sheep, or Christians) could grow.

Was that what St. Peter was doing in Galatians 2?

 

[Namesake]

East Anglican

I don’t know you but are you saying you’re a cannibal?
What street or village do you live at ?
I’ll send a missionary around…just kidding…

In Nebraska we have a state senator who says that Christians are the only religion that eats their God. Interesting.

 

[Namesake]

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”

“pope” is literally Greek for “father”

In fact, the word “pope” appears hundreds of times in The New Testament.

Pope is probably more correctly derived from a Latin word. But since you are Catholic you are undoubtedly right.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is this based on a Scriptural teaching or is this your own assesment?

Matthew 18:18 "Truly I say to you (plural) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you (plural) loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven

I only see Jesus telling “one” Apostle (the same one that He gave the Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven to), Peter, that He is to tend and feed His sheep and in fact, he is also told to feed The Apostles (the lambs).

You are reading your interpretation into it. It says feed the lambs, the =The Apostles is your imagination. Stick to the text.

Of course, if I’m wrong that when Jesus addressed Peter directly He “meant” all the Apostles, you can prove this to me, right?

It can be proved.

Whether it can be “proved” to you might be another matter.

(That’s like the Protestant who said that when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build My Church”, He was pointing to Himself! LOL).

How about the Church Fathers who identify the rock with Christ?

Yes. Jesus is pointing to Himself. where else would we go?

I do recall that in the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy pictures, that is Whom He is pointing to. But maybe I am mistaken.

 

[2ndGen]

Are you now admitting, that despite your first claims that 1) not only does the word “pope” not appear “hundreds of times” in the NT, the term doesn’t appear in the Bible at all, 2) St. Peter does NOT use the term to refer to himself literally in the Bible :bigyikes: 3) although pope means father (actually daddy), it is not the term used in the Bible, 4) The Apostles (includng Paul) do not refer themselves as “popes” to their disciples.

 

[2ndGen]

I hope you speak better to her.

You’re the one insisting on a word being in the Bible (which isn’t). Not us.

Only one denied Christ (actually, if you look at the 136 times (or what is the exact number, I forget) Peter is mentioned in the NT, a number made much of in apologia for the papacy of Rome, the majority of those references refer to St. Peter’s denial of Christ).

And he had to be restored…John 21.

http://www.gizoo.co.uk/Products/HomeGarden/Home/CluckCoo/lrg-qua-CluckCoo.jpg

Wow…that’s up there with Roswell.

 

[2ndGen]

Greek has undergone some restructuring the past 2,000 years.

 

[2ndGen]

Was that what St. Peter was doing in Galatians 2?

Jumping debates already?

Whoa there cowboy…get back over here.

I’m not done with you yet.

You’re trying to divert this conversation into every even in Peter’s life to squirm your way out of the Primacy of Peter exchange.

This isn’t anything new…I can’ almost tell you what you’re going to do before you do it. You anti-Peterians get answered on one question, then you get question, then you try to change the topic quick by reverting to one of Peter’s faults.

Sooooo predictable.

Major ownage!



Now, if you’re done with Peter’s Primacy (I’m still waiting to here your response on Peter being named first in almost every historically important even in Church History in the Holy Bible since you brought up his being “first” in Antioch), tell me right here and now and we’ll go on to Peter denying Jesus 3 times, Paul confronting Peter, then to Jesus telling Satan to get behind Him while answering Peter, then what’s next? Oh but of course!

The good ol reliable “the Peter who started The Catholic Church in Rome is Simon Mangus!”

Or maybe you’ll bring up the things that Peter “didn’t” do.

Bring it…:coffeeread: