M
Mickey
Guest
Oh I see. So you have resorted to ad hominem.
Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?
- Status
W
w_stewart
Guest
We are talking about the convening. The Council did not decide to convene the council. The Popes authorized it.
But Constantine had not acted without the knowledge of the Pope. And by the way, was it the emperor who finally approved the decrees of the Council?
M
Mickey
Guest
Then perhaps you should brush up.
M
Mickey
Guest
Exactly! It has changed.
W
w_stewart
Guest
What did I mean in the phrase “it was only the Pope who authorized”?
I perfectly knew that Constantine was instrumental in the Council of Nicea and that some emperors had roles played in other councils.
I used that phrase to mean that no other church leaders could convene a council (ecumenical) other than the Pope. Not even the Cardinals. Not even patriarchs. Not even the emperors acting independently from the Pope.
W
w_stewart
Guest
Oh no! Warning you against becoming onion-skinned is by no means an ad hominem.
P
paul_c
Guest
All, this thread has deteriorated badly. It should not be a discussion of Orthodoxy but rather whether Peter was the leader of the church after Christ Ascension. Lets get back on topic.
Mickey, if you want to debate the relative merits of orthodoxy vs Catholicism or why you believe the Papacy means something differently now versus the first millenium, start the appropriate threads.
Mickey, if you want to debate the relative merits of orthodoxy vs Catholicism or why you believe the Papacy means something differently now versus the first millenium, start the appropriate threads.
M
Mickey
Guest
The Pope would not and could not ratify a council without the support of the other bishops. It was a collegial process. Why do you not understand this?
M
Mickey
Guest
Don’t blame me Paul. I keep saying this but Mr Stweart insists on attempting to prove papal supremacy while calling other people “onion skin”.
I have been asking him to start a thread. But he will not.
T
twb1621
Guest
Some very interesting writings on the two saints in question and lastly the Papacy itself.
ST. JAMES THE LESS, APOSTLE.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JAMES.htm
SAINT PETER PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/peter.htm
James Akin on the Papacy as God’s gift.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm
Peace my diversified brothers…
ST. JAMES THE LESS, APOSTLE.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JAMES.htm
SAINT PETER PRINCE OF THE APOSTLES
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/peter.htm
James Akin on the Papacy as God’s gift.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm
Peace my diversified brothers…
M
Mickey
Guest
Aha! Now I see that this theory of the keys being linked to Isaiah 22 comes from James Akin. He seems to be quoted more than the Church Fathers!
P
paul_c
Guest
Trust me on this, no one was discussing Orthodoxy until you entered this thread. You explanded the discussion. No one else. Don’t expect others to start a thread on Orthodoxy, because I doubt any one else here is motivated to do so.Don’t blame me Paul. I keep saying this but Mr Stweart insists on attempting to prove papal supremacy while calling other people “onion skin”.
I have been asking him to start a thread. But he will not.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Your argument recognizes the problem and tries to solve it. I think the words “drink of this fruit of the vine” refers to the cup of which Jesus said “this is my blood” from which all the disciples just drank and therefore shows the intent was not to perform a miracle.
No, the development of the notion of transubstantiation in the bread and cup was an over-reaction to docetic tendencies in Syria where Ignatius lived that denied the physicality of Christ.
M
Mickey
Guest
Trust you!?! Blah, blah, blah. I know Paul. Blame it on the sole Orthodox participation. I understand your bias. As soon as I began to answer the OP, the Orthodox bashing party began. Funny how that happens. But of course, I will always defend Holy Orthodoxy from the attacks from others–including yourself.
I think I have made my point on this thread. Perhaps I’ll sit back and let you swarm Daniel Keeran again–who by the way has been handing your head to you.
Nice job Daniel.
M
Mickey
Guest
And then perhaps others should start answering the OP.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
**
James Akin on the Papacy as God’s gift.**
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm
Peace my diversified brothers…
If the papacy is God’s gift and indeed the most important, why is it not referred to as a gift in sacred scripture that speaks of many kinds of gifts?
Y
YADA
Guest
Well you never answered any of the questions regardig the meaning of Isaiah and the similarity [extreme similarity] between what Jesus told Simon [Peter] …Aha! Now I see that this theory of the keys being linked to Isaiah 22 comes from James Akin. He seems to be quoted more than the Church Fathers!
but what we see now is that you believe that the quotation of Isaiah by Jesus was simply an accident a coincidence - meaningless… that Jesus did not intend to give Peter the keys to the kingdom [though he said he was] …
In point of fact you believe that [accident of quoting passages about the King’s representative aside] Jesus’ direct reference to Peter being foundational to the church and changing his name from Simon has no meaning. Ergo all apostles having equal autority and responsibility all possess keys and that if Peter opens then these others can shut [should they so desire] and if Peter shuts the others can open … or perhaps it is like the “Launch Button” … it takes 12 keys all inserted simultaneiously to open or close …
Funny, I just have a hard time thinking that Jesus quoted any passage without reason and deep meaning - let alone ‘accidentally’ …
FYI: I have never read Akins discussion of Isaiah though I have read it for myself …
The lack of any direct reference by a ECF is not evidence that there is no connection … it could just mean that no one ever questioned or disuted the connection …
As for Augustine and his commentary … people aways want to place items like this as an “either or” situation … much is really a “both and” … We are like Peter when we declare that Jesus is the Messiah, theSon of the Living God … but we are not made the Rock upon which Jesus would build His Church … though we [as members of the body of Christ] are living stones in the Church.
Yes all the Apostles have a mission to shephard their communities, the feed the faithful, to build up the body of Christ and each other [the other shephards] … they are shephards because Christ is the Good Shephard … they share in the ministry of Christ - and derive their authority from Christ … they are collegial and they operate as such. Peter [and those who occupy the See of Peter the Chair of Peter] have all of that responsibility and more …
Thus, the Church does hold the Keys in a sense and the Church has a head - Peter and an organization - the apostles, and a people - the community of believers … we all have a role and the roles overlap in some areas …
Augustine reflected upon Christ, the Church, the Scriptures, the community of believes and variosu doctrines … Augustine fully understood the complexities and nuances …
For example: was it Peter upon which Jesus built His Church or was it upon Peter’s confession … it was both - Peter, the man and Peter’s confession - you can reflect on each seperately but the truth is when Jesus spoke - it was the person of Peter making the declaration - the confession did not hang isolated in air disembodied words … they sprang forth from Simon … so profound were they that Jesus changed Simon’s name - renaming the man not his words …
S
stephraim
Guest
And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Robert Eno, late professor of historical theology at Catholic University, wrote The Rise of the Papacy in which he gives documentation from the ECF’s tracing the idea. The desire for a central supreme authority grew out of challenges to unity of faith, the many heresies also influencing many of the ECF’s themselves as well as the decisions of councils, e.g. Elvira excluding married priests/bishops. Then with imperialization, the title of “Pontifex Maximus” was given to the the singular bishop of Rome, Damasus killing off rival supporters, etc.
The Papacy itself is an innovation which to be true must have been fully defined from the beginning of the church; e.g. one cannot invent the idea of papal infallibility, then back-date it to Acts 2. The Catholic interpretation of Matt 16 is reading back into the text something that developed much later. Otherwise, we would see Peter referred to repeatedly in the NT as the head of the church on earth rather than Christ alone.
We would see Peter presiding in Jerusalem at the council and as a singular bishop. Eno, and I think the majority of Catholic scholars, recognize there never was a singular monarchial bishop in the NT period, in Jerusalem or in Rome as indicated by Hermas and First Clement.
M
Mickey
Guest
St Augustine answered for me.
Careful now. You are putting words in people’s mouths again. St Augustine indicates that the keys are given to the Church through saint Peter through all the apostles(as we see in Matt 18:18). Aside from Jimmy Akin, I see no evidence of an Isaiah link to St Peter.
Never said that either. Why do you make things up?
Now you are catching on!
Oh my! Are you belittling the other apostles here? There are twelve thrones for the twelve apostles. Jesus Christ did not say that one of those thrones would be set above the rest.
Jesus Christ said nothing accidentally. As for your odd interpretations…
Lack of evidence is not proof of its reliability.
If we confess that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God…we too are like Kepha!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Christ
- Status