Catholic Online Forum

Christ is in our midst!

Mary and David,

Prof. Clement Rodgers, of Kings College, Oxford, says precisely--and far more succinctly--what I have been trying to formulate as a response to the posting of carefully selected Patristic "snippets" in defense of papal claims:



Perhaps I will find the time later to post a list of patristic writings that run counter to claims of papal supremacy. If I do, it is not because I think such out-of-context snippets decide the issue, but by way of refuting the supposition that the patristic evidence is decisively and conclusively in favor of Roman presuppositions.

Godspeed,

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Dear Marvin,

I'm sorry if you feel I intentially misrepresented your position. That most certainly was not and is not my intent. Just as it is not my intent to errect straw men. Are these sort of accusations what this has come to, my friend? Is winning the "debate" really that important to you? A pity.

I have no desire to ressurrect this debate. I do not debate for its own sake. The last word is yours, my friend. The facts of history are there. I rest upon them. The evidence is overwhelming. It's not even close. Argue against it if you must. We have access to the same evidence and we make our choices, to paraphrase something Dave Armstrong said in another thread.

Good luck to you and God bless.

_________________
"O God, be merciful to me a sinner." (Luke 18: 13)

Sincerely in Christ,

David S.

Dear friends
As I have said before and I repeat here I am not learned like you but I am trying to understand and benefit.

What baffles me is there seems to be no similar verses (Primacy of Peter) about any other Apostle. If there were verses implying that other Apostles were the head or had the primacy then one could say that it reflects different opinions of the Fathers and it is not just Peter.
For instance I would like to see something like the following verses said about another Apostle by a known Father of the Church that was not tried or excommunicated.


"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 <"Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 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> ).


"It is evident to all who know the gospel that the charge of the whole Church was committed to St. Peter, the Apostle and Prince of all tie Apostles, by the word of the Lord....Behold! he hath received the keys of the heavenly kingdom—the power of binding and loosing is conferred upon him: the care of the whole government of the Church is confided to him" (St. Gregory the Great, Epist. Iib. v., Epist. xx).

In Christ
Mary

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” St. Augustine in’ Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental’

Dear George R
I suggest that you give a reference for your quotes so on could read them in context.
In Christ
Mary

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” St. Augustine in’ Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental’

Christ is in our midst!

Mary raises an excellent point:



I don't know that what is required is a list advocating other patriarch's primacy (since the Eastern church has never adovcated such a thing), so much as a list of quotes that could be (mis-)interpreted to suggest such primacy. I suspect one could compile a fairly lengthy list, but I will restrict myself to one of the very first supposed witnesses to Roman primacy evoked by its apologists: St. Ignatius, speaking here to and about the Church of Smyrna:

[Emphasis added]
[see: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm ]

Now, if this were said of Rome, wouldn't apologists for papal supremacy claim this as proof that Rome could not fall into error? Clearly, you would not that that is true of Smyrna. And if it isn't, what of all the similar quotes regarding Rome?

The point is, it is easy to take statements out of context and make them appear to address eventualities and situations that go far beyond the actual situation and context to which they were addressed. For example:



Consider the following, also from St. John Chrysostom:


Are we to understand that St. John Chrysostom, in describing Paul as a "teacher of the world," and "as chief and leader of the choir of the saints," is here advocating a Pauline primacy?

I am really not interested in getting into a war of competing lists of proof-tests. Rather, I want to point out the fallacy of such an approach. Let's take the first of your quotes:

Read in context, St. John Chrysostom seems to be distinguishing between the roles of SS. Peter and James by noting that the latter, at the time of the events described in Acts 15, enjoyed the presidency of the local Church at Jerusalem (itself, at that time, enjoying a clear "primacy" among the incipient Churches of its time), whereas St. Peter functioned as something of an itinerant "apostle at large," as did, for example, St. Paul. That does not equal petrine primacy in the way advocated by the Roman Catholic Church.

I would point out, too, that most Orthodox scholars do not deny that Rome, during most of the centuries of the undivided Church, enjoyed a kind of primacy, consistent with what Fr. Afanassieff has interpreted St. Ireneus to mean by "presiding in love." We just don't see therein the validity of the ultramontanist claims characteristic of modern Roman Catholicism.

To David: I apologize if the tone of my remarks seemed unfriendly; I did not intend them to be so. I just wanted to point out that I had not, in fact, made a number of clearly specious arguments you attributed to me.

Godspeed,

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Woops! I meant St. Ignatius.

David, you graciously offered me the last word. I'll accept, as it has taken me quite some time to read through the consecutive series of very lengthy postings you made earlier.

David, you spent some time pointing out that the Church eventually sided with Pope Stephen against St. Cyril and Bishop Fermilian, on the issue of baptismal re-iteration. But, that hardly addresses my main point, which is that, in their disagreement with Stephen, Cyril and Fermilian seem oddly unpersuaded regarding the universal jurisdiction that you say had clearly been established as early as the time of Pope Clement.

As to your contention that their protest is itself evidence that they were aware that Stephen claimed universal jurisdiction: Okay. So? The general acceptance of those claims outside of Roman patriarchal jurisdiction is precisely what is at issue. Clearly, both bishops felt it was entirely possible for Pope Stephen, speaking juridically in a disputed case involving another patriarchate, to get it wrong. Neither appears to have felt bound by his papal decree, and neither appears to think they are bucking Catholic Tradition in failing to accept Stephen's decision. Moreover, neither even appears to feel the need to defend themselves against such a reading of the Tradition: Papal universal jurisdiction (not to mention infallibility) simply appears unknown to them both, beyond Stephen's claim to it, which they seem to qualify as an innovation and a breaking of Communion.

And as to the fact that they ackowledged his see had an apostolic, indeed Petrine, foundation: Again, whatever gave you the idea that I would argue that the petrine foundation of the Roman see would have been contested by the Eastern fathers? That would be absurd.

But none of that adds up to universal papal supremacy of the sort set forth, for example, in Vatican I, and none of it demonstrates that the Eastern patriarchs were wrong to reject as inconsistent with the true nature of the Church papal claims of the sort Roman pontiffs had begun to articulate by the 11th century.

-Marvin (Ambrose)[/i]

Dear Marvin

In your quotes you are now comparing oranges with apples and saying they are the same thing.

How can one accept that this quote:

1) "I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immovable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ..."

Is equivalent to this one:

2) Referring to the Church in Rome "With this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, it is necessary that every Church should be in concord" (St. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, lib. iii., cap. 3, n. 2);

Or this one:

3) "It is evident to all who know the gospel that the charge of the whole Church was committed to St. Peter, the Apostle and Prince of all tie Apostles, by the word of the Lord....Behold! he hath received the keys of the heavenly kingdom—the power of binding and loosing is conferred upon him: the care of the whole government of the Church is confided to him" (St. Gregory the Great, Epist. Iib. v., Epist. xx).

or this one:

4) “Simon, my disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I called you "rock" that you might sustain my entire building. You are the overseer of those who build a church for me on earth. If they should wish to build something forbidden, prevent them, for you are the foundation. You are the head of the fountain from which my doctrine is drawn. You are the head of my disciples. Through you all nations shall drink. Yours is that vivifying sweetness that I bestow. I have chosen you to be as a firstborn in my institution and heir to all my treasures. The keys of the kingdom I have given to you, and behold I make you prince over all my treasures.” St. Ephrem the Syrian, Lamy, S. Ephr. Hymn. et Serm., vol. 1, pr. 411.

Your quotation # 1 could be said about any person or any church by anyone at any time.

But can anyone say quotation 2,3 and 4 (there are many more but these are just examples) about anyone besides St. Peter yesterday, today or tomorrow?
Answer: Never

Has anyone else been given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Answer: No
Does any other Apostle's name come before that of Peter when they are mentioned throughout the New Testament? Answer: No
Was any other Apostle called the 'first' as in Mt. 10:2 Answer:No
Mat 10:2 "And the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother"


Your wrote:

"...the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world...." [Homily 24 on Genesis].

"...how should Paul have been saved, how should Peter, the chief teachers of the world?" [Homily IX, on the Epistles to the Corinthians, NPNF V. XIII, page 324].

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love" [Homily 32, on Romans, NPNF, V. XI, p.561].

The above three quotes you give do not take away the primacy of Peter or give the Primacy to Paul. In these verses St. Chrysostom is simply saying that they both are teachers of the world (gentiles). Just as today the Bishop of Rome the Pope is still a teacher of his local diocese. As a matter of fact towards the end of your last reference St. Chrysostom adds:
“For he honored him while alive. For he "went up to see Peter." (Gal. i. 18) and therefore even when departed grace deigned to give him the same abode with him”
notice ‘he honored him’ Him is Peter and ‘grace deigned to give him the same abode with him’. The last him refers to Peter.

And again you cannot compare your above 3 quotes with this one by the same Saint:

"The Son committed to Peter the office of spreading the knowledge of His Father and Himself over the whole world. He who increased the Church in all the earth, and proclaimed it to be stronger than the heavens, gave to a mortal man all power in Heaven when He handed him the Keys" (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. Liv, in Matt. v., 2).
Notice ‘the whole world’ and also ‘gave to a mortal man all power in Heaven’

Can this be said about any man that ever lived? Answer: never

In Conclusion: if no one can find similar quotations said about any other human being that ever lived to compare with what was said about St. Peter-then one is obligated to believe that there was something special about his office.

In Christ
Mary

“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” St. Augustine in’ Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental’

Marvin:

I just want to clarify something about my understanding of Catholicity understood from an Orthodox point of view.

It seems to me that the Orthodox recognize the unity of churches under a patriarch or bishop in a particular area but when we start getting into a notion of universality, it seems to me that the Orthodox are quite content to let the universal church be a mystical or spiritual entity without having to posess a visible character.

So arguements about whether the "universal" church should be organized under some kind of collegial arrangement with the Bishop of Rome acting as the first among equals or some other chairmanship conception or whether the Pope should be supreme pontiff over all the churches is a particularly Latin/Roman mentality and a particularly Latin/Roman arguement. IOW, in either case it is envisioning the universal Church in concrete, visible terms. Orderliness, concreteness, structure, etc.

The difficulty with the Orthodox is that the Slavic mind does not conceive of universality in that way. Unity is concretized in the geographic area but beyond that the universal (Catholic) spiritual reality pervades however it pervades - it's spiritual. It is comfortable with this whereas the Roman/Latin mind isn't.

Actually from my vantage point I see and hope that the Catholic Church is beginning to understand itself as a collection of various rites (churches) organized under the visible head of the Pope but with each rite (maybe we can think about American rites, Canadian rites, etc.) having its' own character and liturgy, governance models, discipline and so on. What I see happening is that as the Russian church begins to become Westernized it begins to think in Roman ways which is counter-intuitive to some of its' spirituality and tradition and herein lies the tension.

Whereas the Roman Church is moving a little more towards relaxing on jurisdiction and uniformity as a pre-condition for unity.

I just don't think we are as far away as you seem suggest.

Fair ?

_________________
George D.

"May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton’s Sleep!"

William Blake

Christ is in our midst!

Dear Mary,

The problem with this kind of proof-texting is that it strips passages from their context, often ignoring their original purposes and meaning, in order to create a "pastiche" that conforms to modern notions of papal primacy.

It is as if I were carefully to cut out from a wide variety of American magazines a great many pictures of parents berating and/or disciplining their children, without regard to what those pictures were designed to illustrate within their original articles, in order to "prove" the contention that Americans approve of child abuse.



I have already pointed out, in response to David, that this translation from a translation (Ireneus wrote in Greek, but a poor Latin translation is all that is extant) is suspect in its choice of words. Even accepting the Latin, it is highly partisan, and arguably inconsistent with other aspects of Ireneus' writings, to translate the Latin phrase necesse convenire as "should be in concord," as opposed to, say, "should have recourse to," or "should consult with." What Roman Catholic scholars have translated as "preeminent authority," has, with validity, been translated by Orthodox scholars as "most excellent foundation."



In all honesty, I am not familiar with that passage from St. Gregory. First, I would point out that it may well be the case that St. Gregory here has St. Peter, and St. Peter alone, in mind. That is, his remarks here are not necessarily aimed at the incumbents of the See of Rome. And, if they are, one must still establish what he has in mind by "the power of binding and loosing," and by "the care of the whole government of the Church." To know any of this, one simply must read the passage in context.

I have read about a similar passage from St. Gregory, from the Registry of Epistles, III, xxx, in which St. Gregory says the "Apostolic See" {i.e. Rome} 'is by the ordering of God, set over all Churches." Fr. Dn. John Whiteford has given a better response than can I:

{http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9906B&L=orthodox&P=R10484&D=1&H=0&O=D&T=1&m=54423}



I will respond to this quote, and let that response stand for the other proof-texts you list, as well:

Again, Mary, one needs to know whether St. Ephrem here intends the incumbents upon the See of Peter as 'successors to Peter.' And, if he does, one needs to know what point St. Ephrem is making.

I would refer you to the following remarks by Fr. Meyendorff, of blessed memory, and of the highly respected Yale professor, Church historian, former Lutheran, and recent convert to Orthodoxy, Jaroslav Pelikan:

Pelikan provides this overview of the Eastern Church’s understanding of the rock and Peter in Matthew 16:16–19:

(Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 160-161)

John Meyendorff documents the overall Eastern exegesis of Matthew 16 and its view of ecclesiology:

Meyendorff, "St. Peter in Byzantine Theology" in The Primacy of Peter; London: Faith, 1963; pp. 7-29

Truth is simply not well served by the kind of proof-texting in which you engaged in your last two postings.

Godspeed,

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Christ is in our midst!

Hi, George.



To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that I really understand what you're saying. The notion of the Church, in any of its manifestations, as a primarily spiritual or mystical entity as opposed to a concrete entity sounds rather like a Calvinist ecclesiology, which the Orthodox reject. But, I'm not sure that's what you have in mind at all. Could you clarify?

Godspeed,

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Marvin,

The Vatican translation of the "convenire" passage in Pope John XXIII encyclical, "Aeterna Dei Sapeitia", goes thus :



From the zeal that Protestants and Orthodox show in "debunking" this passage, we conclude that, had not the translator written "convenire ad" instead of "convenire cum", all Christian churches would be united under the direction of Peter's successor.

My God! Do you think that translator went to heaven?:roll:

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

The name of that encyclical is "Aeterna Dei Sapientia". Sorry.

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

If you click on the words "this encyclical" (OK, so it's really a bull) in
my posting you'll be taken to the whole thing. But here is the link
in full:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John22/qquor-e.htm

_________________
George R

I think it's important in this debate to realise that there is actually a
wide variety of different sorts of primacy, and they need to be distinguished.
For example the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Queen, both enjoy primacy
over the Church of England, but in different senses.

Broadly speaking you have primacy of honour, which is probably what
the Queen enjoys. Then you have primacy of authority, which is to
some extent what the A of C enjoys (though his authority is very limited).
And finally you have primacy of infallibility where the decisions
are irreformable. None of these imply the other; indeed the Pope himself
enjoys in some areas authority without infallibility. For example the Pope
has authority to excommunicate (surely this is ultimately his most important
power), but these excommunications can later be retrospectively revoked.

I would suggest that while there is widespread evidence in the Church Fathers
for according the Pope a primacy of honour, there is much less for primacy
of authority (though there is some) and virtually none for primacy of
infallibility. This is why Tierney (from whom I got the reference to the
Bull I've cited) is able to argue that the doctrine of papal infallibility only
evolved from the 13th century on, though the doctrine of papal authority was
present earlier.

For example Halsall claims about Augustine's "Roma Locuta, causa finita est"

I think I would like to see what Peter Brown's book actually says, to see
whether Halsall's analysis is justified.

_________________
George R

Marvin:

Could you clarify?

Let's take the case of the Eastern Churches and the validation of their Eucharist in the Roman Church. This is very significant. The Liturgy of Eastern Rites, is completely valid, and Roman Catholics may partake in that communion with those churches and vice versa. No restrictions, no problems, full communion - and yet the Eastern churches are allowed to maintain the form of their liturgy, spirituality and so on. So the notion that somehow being a Catholic means being a Roman in terms of liturgical and spiritual expression is going by the boards.

So what’s the issue? Governance? Eastern Catholics are under the headship of an Eastern patriarch who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome who allows full Eastern expression in terms of law, liturgy and so on. There is no hidden agenda as ecumenism is moves along. It’s not 1903, its’ 2003. Different times - our time. The Catholic Church is becoming more Catholic.

See this document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... ra_en.html from another thread.

The notion of the Church, in any of its manifestations, as a primarily spiritual or mystical entity as opposed to a concrete entity sounds rather like a Calvinist ecclesiology, which the Orthodox reject.

No, the Eastern Rite reject that notion. See this article by BISHOP ROMAN DANYLAK of the Ukrainian rite. http://www.heartofjesus.ca/UkrainianChu ... fBrest.htm



This point is an important and honest one and one in which Nikolia Berdayev, a Russian Orthodox existentialist philosopher noted as well. Unifying Christians East and West




These differences are, and should be complementary.

_________________
George D.

"May God us keep
From Single vision & Newton’s Sleep!"

William Blake

Interesting. Eastern Orthodox are pretty competent in defending their point of view. But it is especially in this particular point of ecclesiology which is Orthodoxy's Achilles' heel - that is, the Orthodox ecclesiological rhetoric breaks down when it comes to defending itself against the presbyterian or congregational standard. Some Protestant in the latter tradition can always appeal to inconsistency in the Orthodox argument - that is, if an hierarchical ecclesial structure is the one adopted from the Apostles, how can the Orthodox expect their ecclesiology to be followed by a convert from a Protestant background if the Orthodox cannot follow those same rules of hierarchy when it comes to their relationship with the Catholic Church/ the Pope?

I've always wondered: a certain priest is in charge of his own church, right? Now consider the relationship between a priest and his bishop. The bishop of that priest does not oversee every aspect of that priest's church to such a degree that the priest has absolutely no freedom in his church right? Is this the way it is in Orthodoxy? I mean, if one can compare the ideal relationship of the Pope and other bishops to the relationship of the bishops to his priests, I don't see what the problem would be, unless the relationship between bishop and priest in Orthodoxy is one of master and slave. This seems to be the way Orthodox percieve it would be like if the bishops of Eastern Orthodoxy were to be in communion with Rome. What's good for the goose... (Of course, the analogy is not perfect because the prerogatives of a bishop are much greater than the prerogatives of a priest)

I think this is why Catholics are able to compare Orthodox to Protestants rather facilely sometimes - as George pointed out, Orthodoxy observes the same ecclesiology as Catholicism, but only up to the level of the Patriarchal See. BEYOND that level, Orthodoxy is quite Protestant in its ecclesiological vision of the Church as a merely spiritual entity.

God bless.

Christ is in our midst!

Guys,

To characterize Orthodox ecclesiology as a vision of the Church as primarily "spiritual," but not concretized in physical form, or as similar to Calvinist ecclesiology, is just wrong, pace your Bishop Roman (who is not Orthodox, let us remember). As to the words of Fr. Berdyaev, of blessed memory, they do not seem to me parallel or necessarily at all consistent with the words of the bishop.

Orthodox ecclesiology does not hold that there is an "invisible" or "spiritual unity" of the Church "above" the level of bishops. We do not believe in a "super-diocesan" "body of Christ," either "mystical" or institutional, of which dioceses are merely parts.

What we believe is that the local Church, centered upon its bishop serving the Divine Liturgy, patterned after the way the Israelite community was centered upon the one temple, with its one liturgy presided over by the one high priest, is the realization of the Body of Christ, our all-sufficient one High Priest: it is the Church, not merely part of the Church. Wherever it occurs, there is the Catholic Church, and not just part of it.

We have plenty of patristic witnesses that bear out this vision of the Church.

Bishops have the special charism and responsability of recognizing the realization of the Church in other local Churches where it occurs, and of seeking such recognition. Incumbent upon them, then, is the responsibility to consult, in council, with other bishops of their region(s), and to seek recognition of their calling to the episcopate from members of those councils. Metropolitans have a special ministry in this regard. But, our canons conceive of this as a ministry of service, not as an exercising of jurisdictional authority by some prelates over other, fellow bishops. In practice, though, this can lead to forms that bear a superficial ressemblance to Catholic eccelisiological forms.

The Church of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church is, in our view, completely concrete and real: Go find an Orthdox bishop serving the Divine Liturgy in the midst of his people, and there you have it. No "invisible body" or "mystical body of believers," in the Calvinist sense, is envisioned by us at all. In fact, such language, like the Roman Catholic language of a "universal Church," of which dioceses are mere "parts," is totally alien to our Tradition.

Godspeed,

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Marvin,

Thank you for your presentation. But saying that, in the Catholic view, dioceses are mere parts of the larger church is not exact : See the CCC.



We should also remember that, although bishops are to exercise their authority in union with the Supreme Pontiff, this authority derives directly from the apostles.



Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

Rob,

Thanks for clarifying that. I do not want to mischaracterize Roman Catholicism, about which you all continue to teach me a great deal.

This is being written so that the position of Papal Authority and primacy can be established and hopefully settled. I was recently e-mailed with a request to respond to this subject within this forum. So here goes..

First to establish that the position of Peter is more than honorary as stated by Marvinvann we first go to where Simon Peter received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. So we will turn our bibles to Matthew 16:13-19 and read what follows.

(13)When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying," Who do men say that I am?"(14)And they said," Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."(15)He said unto them," But who do you say that I am?"(16)And Simon Peter answered and said," You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
(17)And Jesus answered and said unto him," Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood did not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in heaven.(18)And I say also unto you, That you are Peter(the original Greek used Petros; Rock), and upon this rock(petra; rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(19)And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Clearly in Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus is presenting a special position to Simon Peter. For Jesus was clearly setting Peter above the other disciples in authority and a form of leadership. This is because Peter was receiving of the Father’s gift of sight. And through that submission to the spirit of God, was made above the rest of the disciples for his purity of heart. For he was honest with himself as well with God within his heart, for only the Lord knows the hearts of man. And thus by this honesty, was made a perfect vessel for tha Holy Spirit For it later reads in Matthew 24:45-47 that Jesus did in fact intend for there to be a position of authority over the flock; a Shepherd if you will, to guide those in the house :

(45)Who then is the faithful and prudent servant whom his lord has set over his household, to give them food in season?(46)Blessed is that servant whom his lord on coming shall find doing thus.(47)Verily I say unto you, that he will set him over all his possessions.

So when Jesus handed the keys to Simon Peter, He was not just setting a position above the eleven other disciples, but in turn was setting him above all followers of Christ as well as giving him the authority of Christ himself as well as the Kingdom of Heaven. This is shown in Luke 22:29-32, John 21:15-17, as well as the last part of John 10:16:

Luke 22:29-32
" And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father has appointed me. That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said," Simon, Simon, behold, Satan had desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for you, that your faith does not fail: and when you are converted, strengthen your brethren."

John 21:15-17
So when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter," Simon son of Jonas, do you love me?" He replied, Yes Lord you know I love you. Jesus said to him," Feed my lambs." Again Jesus asked Simon Peter if he loved him where he replied Yes Lord you know I love you. Jesus replied," Feed my sheep." A third time Jesus asked him whether Simon Peter loved him. Peter was grieved and replied, Lord you know all things, You know I love you. Jesus said to him," Feed my sheep."

John 10:16
"…. ; and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
He had full command of what was bound and loosened and whatever he allowed was allowed in Heaven and the likewise with what was bound( Mt. 16:19). His position was to lead and guide the other disciples in the leadership of the church Christ wanted them to establish, edify and shepherd (Jn. 21:15-17,10:16). Thus Jesus Himself establishes Peter as Vicar of Christ.

Other examples and mentions within sacred texts include Genisis 41:38-46, and Isaiah 22:15-22. They read as follows:

Genisis 41:38-46
( 38)And Pharaoh said to his servants, Shall we find one as this, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?(39)And Pharaoh said to Joseph, Since God has made all this known to you, there is none [so] discreet and wise as you are.(40)You shall be over my house, and according to your commandment shall all my people regulate themselves; only concerning the throne will I be greater than you.
(41)And Pharaoh said to Joseph, See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.(42)And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in clothes of byssus, and put a gold chain on his neck.(43)And he caused him to ride in the second chariot that he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee! and he set him over all the land of Egypt.(44)And Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh; and without your command shall no man lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.(45)And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-paaneah, and gave him as wife Asnath the daughter of Potipherah the priest in On. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

Within this first example of scripture we clearly see a position of authority being made for Joseph the same as was made for Peter. For through his loyalty to God, Joseph was as well a perfect recipient for the Spirit of God to move through. This Pharaoh clearly saw and recognized. For in verse 39, Pharaoh stated that he knew God revealed this to Joseph and, that with God commanding Joseph’s heart, this made him more discreet and wise than any person. This seems to show that verse 39 in Genisis parallels Matthew 16:17 in where both received their insight from the Heavenly Father. Another parallel is that both received their positions for this quality in their lives. Their obedience to the Father merited in a sense this gift of insight to hear and relay what the Spirit of God spoke to their hearts. For Pharaoh in verse 40 and 44 states that Joseph will have the same authority in his kingdom as Pharaoh himself, save only within the throne room where Pharaoh will be greater than he. His authority will be to direct the people of Egypt and whatever he commands will be as if Pharaoh himself commanded it. This would translate that those who disobeyed the Steward, the same would be as if it were a disobeying of the King. This position, that where the King of a kingdom gives his authority to another person would later be referenced as the position of the Steward of the Kingdom as is shown in Isaiah 22:15, where the reference is made to a wicked steward named Shebna who is over the house of Israel. Here is the first mention of the position of the title of steward which reads as follows:

(15)Thus says the Lord of hosts: Go, you unto this steward, unto Shebna, who is over the house, and say,(16)What have you here? and whom have you here, that you have hewn yourself a sepulcher here, as he that heweth out his sepulcher on high, cutting out in the rock a habitation for himself?(17)Behold, The Lord will hurl you with the force of a mighty man, and will cover you entirely.(18)Rolling you up completely, he will roll you as a ball into a wide country: there shall you die, and there shall be the chariots of your glory, a shame to your lord's house!(19)And I will drive you from your office, and from your station will I pull you down.(20)And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkijah;(21)and I will clothe him with your robe, and strengthen him with your girdle, and I will commit your government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

Isaiah 22:15 clearly enforces the position of a steward of the kingdom. Another trait associated with the stewardship of the kingdom is that it is a lifelong position. Here we have Shebna using his power to further his own gain; Hence, verses 18-21 where when Shebna the Steward of the kingdom of Judah will die and will thus lose his position and the authority he had will be fully returned in full to the King to pass to another if he so chooses..

Because Shebna was doing what was evil in the eyes of the Lord by being a man of greed and pride, the Lord refers Shebna to the iniquity of the house of Judah, and had him removed from office where Eliakim took over.

Another point to be made is the one where some say that Peter is not in charge. Well lets look to Acts 1:15-22. Clearly we see Peter leading with an authoritative interpretation of Psalms 69:25 and 109:8.In fact, the first 15 chapters of the Book of Acts is dedicated purposely to the acknowledgment of Peter’s primacy. In Acts 1:21 Peter declares the "necessity that one of the men that accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us to become with us a part of the resurrection." Peter declares again how it is to be done. This first declaration by Peter explains the way they would allow succession among those with the position of Apostle. Peter in chapter 2:14-36 authoritivly explains the Pentecost. Who was it in chapter 3 who healed the lame man? Our man Peter once again. Who raised Dorcas in Ch 9 ? Peter. Acts Ch 15:7-11 at the first church counsel in Jerusalem, this says there was there was much disputing. Peter stood up and all fell silent while he preached salvation through grace. Peter had spoken, the matter was settled. Verse 12 says they kept their silence while Paul and Barnabas explained what God was doing among the Gentiles. James had to bring attention to himself to purpose the method that would be used to fulfill the command of Peter.
As mentioned before by Peter when a position becomes vacant within the church they shall select candidates and fill the position. For Paul himself declares in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 the qualifications of those who desire to take hold of the position of Bishop denoting what was said earlier in the bible in the book of Acts 20:28. This passage states for us to take heed of ourselves and to all the flock, over which the holy Spirit have made you overseers (epiiskopoi, Bishops), to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.
I hop that this settles the issue with the Primacy. If not see Moses in the Old Testament books of Exodus, Liviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Within these books you will clearly see the persona of Moses leading the people to the promised land in a fashion that is similar in many ways that Jesus led the twelve. Also in Deuteronomy 34:9 explicitly shows the succession of Joshua after Moses laid hands on him in Numbers 28:18. And also be sure to remember that Old Testament events (icons) were foreshadows of New Testament realities and events.


in principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Dium, et Deus erat Verbum!
(In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God!)

_________________
Daniel Schmitt

Dear Daniel
Does the position of High Priest in the Old Covenant have any relationship with the position of Pope in the New Covenant.
In the Gospel of John Caiphas the High Priest spoke not of himself but of God specifically because he was High Priest.
Is it logical to conclude that since God had a High Priest in the Old Covenant through which He speaks to His people He would also have one in the New Covenant.

"Joh 11:49 But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing.
Joh 11:50 Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh 11:51 And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation."

Thanks
Mary


“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” St. Augustine in’ Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental’

Elijah, each point you raise has already been raised and critiqued within the discussion thread. May I suggest you carefully read the previous postings in the discussion? I'm sure we'd all profit from any fresh insights you might offer.

-Marvin (Ambrose)

Hello Mary,

Yes there is a realation between the old testament High Priest and the Pope. Within the scriptures I gave is additional Proof between both testaments that inclinate that the High Priest is a forshadowment of the Papal Office established by Christ. By Ceiaphas' denial of Christ and Peters declaration thereof, Peter Acquired the position of High Priest.

Hello Marvinvan,

I'm sorry this wasn't what you were looking for. In your earlier posting - i believe your first or second you stated that the biblical evidence that mary offered didn't support what she was trying to point out. I'm sure if you look deeper at the other references I had made it might be worth while. well gotta go - I'll wait for your next posting.

Yours in Christ

[/quote]

_________________
Daniel Schmitt

Hello All-

I know, I know - another posting - bear with me -

Mary I noticed the Quote you left at the bottom of your last posting



I was curious what you were trying to say with this.

When it comes to the Gospel I let the Spirit of God interpret my life according to the Gospel.


Non draco sit mihi dux (May the Dragon not be my master)
From the Cross of St. Benidict.

_________________
Daniel Schmitt

Dear Daniel
.
St. Augustine believed strongly in the Authority of the Catholic Church ,since it is the only one promised infallability through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
He also believed in obedience to the Catholic Church to the extent that if the Church did not tell him believe in this given Gospel he would not believe in it.
As you know the Catholic Church is the one that picked all the Books of the Bible and put them together for us from among 100s that were floating around in the first few centuries. So in effect it is the Catholic Church that told us what to believe.
With all his wisdom and intelligence St. Augustine gave 'the obedience of faith' to Peters successor. That is what I am trying to say.

Greetings all especially Mary and Marvinvann,

The Grace of the Lord is Among Us

Marvin and Mary,

Since I last posted I received from the Lord a stack of booklets that, supriseingly, came from a friend. the even weirder thing was that I didn't tell him that I was researching the orthodox Church. Within these booklets I have found a basic knowledge or understanding of the Orthodox Church through the eyes of the Orthodoxy and the Catholic and Protestant Faiths.

In reply to Mary's last posting, she said



My Response to this is that you are right. We are to listen to our governing Church for the guidance to interpret Sacred Scripture. But in the paraphrased words of Saint Vincent of Lerins, a fifth century saint who loved scriptures, wrote:



What I am saying with this statement is that it true that there is a need for the Holy tradition. And that Through Holy Tradition we can see the truth of scriptures. But to the truth, it wasn’t just the catholic church that created the bible as well as the doctrines of the first thousand years of the Church. The Eastern AND Western churches were ONE. ONE flock under One Christ under ONE God with One unified and agreed in full holy canon of scripture. I’m not trying to sell the Catholics short nor the Orthodox. What I see in total is a fued of whose in charge. This issue is irrelevant because if we were really one with Christ we would be reverting back to what the Apostles ORIGINALLY passed down to the church and we wouldn’t be squabbling over a split up that happened less than a thousand years ago concerning an issue of pride on both sides. I personally believe that both have a lot to offer to each other and I can also see that being used to heal the gap from the schizm.
As a Catholic, I personally researched the truth concerning the Orthodox Church and I encourage others to do so as well. I’m not saying convert, but be aware of the events from both perspectives. As for myself, I will continue to research this topic as best I can. This may take some time but I'm sure that the truth will be made manifest by the glory and love of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yours in Christ,

_________________
Daniel Schmitt

Mary,

logical to conclude that since God had a High Priest in the Old Covenant through which He speaks to His people He would also have one in the New Covenant.

"High priest" is not an idea lightly to be used. We have only one High Priest of the New Covenant, and that is Jesus Christ :

(Hebrews, ch. 7)

The whole of the epistle to the Hebrews is dedicated to show that we have a New Covenant and one High Priest who intercedes for us forever.

Robert

_________________
Ma mission [est] de faire aimer le bon Dieu comme je l'aime. (Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus) My mission is to have God loved as I love Him.

Robdick,
Well said !
I believe that the word that Mary would have been looking for would be "Shepherd" not "High Priest". For every reality in the heavens and below, there is a manifestation of that reality. Thus if Christ is the reality of being the head of the mystical body of Christ, than there by ways of logic and reason (although these really have no bearing on us interpreting God) there would be a manifestation of that reality pertaining to a position honorary and with the authority and power of the reality therein. For mary is correct to assume that there was a position with a person in this position to guide, educate, and father the follewers of the said reality of the Kingdom of Heaven. For on God's side all is finished, complete. When Christ stated that it was finished on the cross he was signifying the completion, in the Heavenlies, of the events of Revelation and the Passover( for our Lord was our personal Paschal Lamb, provided by the Almighty God Himself and of Himself. For it was He Himself that sent Himself for the redemption of man from sin so He in all of us can come to Him.)Thus there must be a manifestation of these realities. We must also acknowlege that God is outside of time and that we,being limited in our concept of time/space (caporeal)in sence, due to the fact we live within the coporeal nature that God created for us,knowing no other reality pertaining to time, timelessness, and eaternity, can only speculate and come to grasps with the fufillment of these realities within the natural. So if the reality in the Eternal realm of the Heavenlies have one Ruler (Christ) there must be a manifestation of that reality within the natural.

I personally hope and pray you received all this.

Crux sancta sit mihi lux. Nunquad draco sit mihi dux.May the Holy Cross be my light. May the dragon not be my Master.

_________________
Daniel Schmitt

Greetings all

Christ is in our midst!

I wanted to apologize if I appeared Harsh and arrogant. I would like to ask marvinvann a Question. My Question was - Relating to some of your other postings, Where would you find Orthodox Bibles? I would really like to know so I could research within the Orthodox faith Proprely. I have also visited a couple Orthodox Churches(Greek) and found them to be very enlightening. Marvinvann please respond.

He is and shall be

_________________
Daniel Schmitt

Daniel - A good source for Orthodox Bibles, books, supplies, etc is Conciliar Press They appear to be associated with Ss Peter and Paul Orthodox Church, Ben Lomond, CA.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

Holy Transfiguration Monastary is another source for Orthodox books:

http://htmadmin.phpwebhosting.com/index.html

_________________
In Christ
Mary

"Only when the Magisterium is accepted docilely in a spirit of faith ... can you avoid the temptations caused by the superficial fascination of theological trends which disfigure and obscure the truth" Pope john Paul II

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you Gabriel and Mary for your support with my researching the Orthodox Faith. I have read about a dozen little booklets by Conciliar Press that the churches have in their lobbies. I have also been reading much on church history in reloations to that time period.
I have foud that Marvin was right about the Primacy of the catholic church and that all the Bishops were equals out of councels but in councel were subject to the primacy of Peters successor. Well gotta go now for the moment - (i have to read you know). I will write back on Mon or sooner.
God bless!!

He is and shall be!

_________________
Daniel Schmitt