Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

justinangel · Nov 30, 2015

prodromos said:
What is wrong is Catholic theology which makes Mary the great exception instead of the great example she is in Orthodoxy.

Don't the Eastern Orthodox regard Mary's glorious assumption body and soul into Heaven an exception? Or do they believe that Enoch and Elijah experienced the same thing?The truth is that all the saints, beginning with Abel, must wait until the Last Day for the redemption of their bodies because of the stain of original sin. Mary is an exception to the rule.

And not only it (creation), but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8, 23

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1 Corinthians 15, 52

Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling.... For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
2 Corinthians 5, 2-5

For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.
Galatians 5, 5

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
1 John 3, 2

So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 3, 24

We should keep in mind that the word kecharitomene (literally: "most highly favoured by grace") in Luke 1:28 is in the vocative case. The angel does not say: “Hail, Mary. You have been 'enduringly, perfectly and completely' endowed with grace.” Rather he directly addresses her by substituting her name for the word: ‘ full of grace.’ Kecharitomene is the name the angel gives Mary when he addresses her. So the state of grace Mary continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation can be considered to be of an enduring and permanent quality which embraces the entire length of her soul's existence. In Scripture the names God gives his servants (Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Jacob-Israel, Simon-Peter, Saul-Paul) refer to their defining characteristics. The name Sarah (“exalted princess” in ancient Hebrew), for example, points to the status of being the Matriarch of the Covenant, who foreshadows the Davidic Queen Mother (Gebirah). Thus the name Kecharitomene points to something essential about Mary’s nature. She isn’t simply described as being full of grace, but is actually called full of grace; she embodies in her person what it means to be "completely, perfectly, and permanently" endowed with grace. The names God gives His servants are permanent. Grammatically and linguistically we must keep both the verb tense and the form of case in mind to fully understand what is being indicated here by the phrase kecharitomene. The perfect tense is being used here in a way that is never used for any other righteous person or saint in the Scriptures. Mary is excepted from ordinary sainthood.

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 [A.D. 388]

Instead of elevating her, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has diminished her.

Rightly understood, original sin is the deprivation of the original justice and sanctity. It is the state of being a descendant of Adam, of being inclined to sin; not his personal sin and guilt imputed to us. God preserved Mary from contracting this stain at the first instant of her conception when He sanctified her soul. I fail to see how any person could possibly be diminished by being endowed with God's sanctifying grace and completely healed of concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life. No human creature, except Mary, has been born in the state of sanctifying grace and liberated from pride and concupiscence. That is why we must be baptized soon after we are born, even though we haven't yet committed any personal sins and still suffer from pride and concupiscence albeit our baptism. If we are born with a clean slate (a moral tabula rasa) and absolutely innocent then baptism is superfluous, for the sacrament removes not only our personal guilt on account of actual sins (adult baptism) but more importantly our guilt by association as Adam's descendants.

A Pelagian might consider the Immaculate Conception as something that could diminish Mary, but that's because they believe human beings have the power not to sin by their very nature apart from the help of divine grace. For them a sinful act results simply from exercising poor moral judgment and abusing free will. There is no such thing as a sinful nature in their theology.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51, 5
"
Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God."
Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181)

PAX

prodromos · Nov 30, 2015

justinangel said:
Don't the Eastern Orthodox regard Mary's glorious assumption body and soul into Heaven an exception? Or do they believe that Enoch and Elijah experienced the same thing?

And Moses, you forgot Moses, though Enoch and Elijah are unique in that they didn't die before being taken up into Heaven.

The truth is that all the saints, beginning with Abel, must wait until the Last Day for the redemption of their bodies because of the stain of original sin.

Says who?

Mary is an exception to the rule.

I notice you didn't say "the exception to the rule". It is wise not to limit God.

justinangel · Nov 30, 2015

prodromos said:
And Moses, you forgot Moses, though Enoch and Elijah are unique in that they didn't die before being taken up into Heaven.

Moses, Enoch, and Elijah exist in a higher terrestrial paradise, so many Church Fathers and Doctors believe. The gates of Heaven were still closed when Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus at his transfiguration. It wasn't until Jesus rose from the dead that the gates of Heaven were opened and he acquired his glorified body. Only Jesus and Mary gloriously exist body and soul in Heaven. The others saints exist in some form of transfigured state. Only their souls have gone to Heaven.

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377)

"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."
Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virgins Mariae (ante A.D. 634)

"It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God."
Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650)

"You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."
Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (ante A.D. 733)

Says who?

I cited St. Paul. Jesus is the first fruit of our bodily resurrection which shall occur when he returns in glory on the last day of this age. The dead shall be raised, and those who are alive shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye and together be taken up body and soul into Heaven. We must wait until the last day, since all of us die in Adam. The cherubim with the flaming sword guards the way to the tree of life in this present age: bodily perfection and physical immortality.

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1 Corinthians 15, 21-23

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
1 Corinthians 15, 51-52

I notice you didn't say "the exception to the rule". It is wise not to limit God.

Agreed, in His justice, God did not have to preserve Mary free from contracting the stain of original sin. But He looked with favour on the lowliness of His handmaid because it was fitting that the mother of His Son be exempted from all stain of sin: original and personal. The Divine Maternity is the sole reason for this singular privilege. No human being, including Mary, can merit the initial grace of justification and forgiveness by any natural merit of theirs (Eph. 2: 8-9). Still Mary was an exception by having been redeemed in the most perfect way, that being by way of a preventive measure rather than a curative one, as it is for the rest of us. Not unlike her Son, Mary had no need to be baptized, since she was conceived in the state of sanctifying grace.

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother."
Ephraem of Syria, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370)

"As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446)

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446)

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay."
Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650)

"Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever."
Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733)

"O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew."
John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749)

PAX

Panevino · Dec 2, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
I am frankly surprised that you would quote this to me -

Matthew 18:15-17
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

This verse specifically states that in the case of sin between individuals there are three steps to taken, of which the final one is to take it to the church (ekklesia). It does not tell us to take it to the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, or even a priest. There is no higher authority given here than the gathered body of believers, of which Christ stated in verse 20 - "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Matt18:15-20
This is all said to the twelve only (see parallel Mark 9:33-35)
Context is leadership in the church (matt18:1 who will be greatest(mark9:35)...matt18:12(shepards) ,matt18:18(binding/loosing to the 12)
Having said this I did not intend to argue for the papacy/cardinals etc when I gave you that verse, I was only trying to suggest that your friend who had the poor response from the priest should approach others rather than leave the church based on the one response. Though understand in hindsight it was not really relevant but you know what I mean.

bbbbbbb · Dec 3, 2015

Panevino said:
Matt18:15-20
This is all said to the twelve only (see parallel Mark 9:33-35)
Context is leadership in the church (matt18:1 who will be greatest(mark9:35)...matt18:12(shepards) ,matt18:18(binding/loosing to the 12)
Having said this I did not intend to argue for the papacy/cardinals etc when I gave you that verse, I was only trying to suggest that your friend who had the poor response from the priest should approach others rather than leave the church based on the one response. Though understand in hindsight it was not really relevant but you know what I mean.

I do. Thank you.

justinangel · Dec 18, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Fortunately, there was the moderator, and leader, of the Church to rely upon - James, who was in charge of the Jerusalem Council.

James and the other Apostles understood that Peter was given the primacy of authority. This is evident in Matthew 16:18: "And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." In several instances in the Scriptures, when God gave authority to someone, he changed the name of that person: Abram - Abraham (primacy over all men; the father of a multitude of nations), Sarai - Sarah (primacy over all women; mother of nations) Jacob - Israel (the primacy of being the first Israelite) Saul - Paul (primacy in reaching out to the Gentiles), Simon - Peter (primacy over all the Apostles). This is known as the Law of First Mention, which means, when something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Of all the apostles, only Simon was given a new name. God Himself gave a sign that Peter was chosen to be the leader of the Apostles, and that was that he alone intuited by the grace of God that Jesus was the Son of God. Peter's declaration of faith foreshadows papal infallibility to some degree.

In John 21:1-11, Peter was the one that John chose to inform first that he saw Jesus standing by the shore. Peter was the first to jump into the sea while the others were behind getting into their boats. And it was Peter alone (the head fisher of men) who hauled the heavy net full of fish onto the shoreland. In John 21:15-17, Jesus chooses to tell only Peter in a direct address: "Feed my sheep." According to the underlying Greek text, in v. 16, the word for "feed" is poimaino, which means to act as shepherd, to rule and govern, to pastor, or act as presiding officer. In v. 17, the Greek word for feed is bosko, which simply means "to feed". The preceding verse defines how it is that Peter is to feed Christ's one flock of sheep - by a primacy of authority, not only over the Apostles, but over the entire Church founded by our Lord in union with the other apostles.

Finally, during the first Church Council at Jerusalem, after a long debate, it was Peter who stood up and said to the other Apostles: " "Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe" (Acts 15:7). God made the choice that Peter should be the one by whom the Gentiles should hear the word of God. In other words, he had the final word in whatever the council should decide. In Acts 10:9-19, it is Peter who received the vision of the clean and unclean animals. And so James declared, as presider of the council by his temporal authority as Bishop of Jersusalem: "Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:13-19). Paul, Barnabas, and James all concurred with Peter's declaration. James' speech was not the definitive point of the council's decision. He simply suggested how to implement what Peter had already definitively expressed. It's evident that Peter acted as the head spokesman of the one Apostolic Church. It was he who first stood up after a long debate and formulated a doctrinal judgment, whereas James took the floor after him by way of formality, being the Bishop where the council was being held, to suggest a pastoral plan for adapting the Gospel in communities where Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped together.

"Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,..."
Matthew 10, 2

:angel:

bbbbbbb · Dec 18, 2015

justinangel said:
James and the other Apostles understood that Peter was given the primacy of authority. This is evident in Matthew 16:18: "And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." In several instances in the Scriptures, when God gave authority to someone, he changed the name of that person: Abram - Abraham (primacy over all men; the father of a multitude of nations), Sarai - Sarah (primacy over all women; mother of nations) Jacob - Israel (the primacy of being the first Israelite) Saul - Paul (primacy in reaching out to the Gentiles), Simon - Peter (primacy over all the Apostles). This is known as the Law of First Mention, which means, when something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Of all the apostles, only Simon was given a new name. God Himself gave a sign that Peter was chosen to be the leader of the Apostles, and that was that he alone intuited by the grace of God that Jesus was the Son of God. Peter's declaration of faith foreshadows papal infallibility to some degree.

In John 21:1-11, Peter was the one that John chose to inform first that he saw Jesus standing by the shore. Peter was the first to jump into the sea while the others were behind getting into their boats. And it was Peter alone (the head fisher of men) who hauled the heavy net full of fish onto the shoreland. In John 21:15-17, Jesus chooses to tell only Peter in a direct address: "Feed my sheep." According to the underlying Greek text, in v. 16, the word for "feed" is poimaino, which means to act as shepherd, to rule and govern, to pastor, or act as presiding officer. In v. 17, the Greek word for feed is bosko, which simply means "to feed". The preceding verse defines how it is that Peter is to feed Christ's one flock of sheep - by a primacy of authority, not only over the Apostles, but over the entire Church founded by our Lord in union with the other apostles.

Finally, during the first Church Council at Jerusalem, after a long debate, it was Peter who stood up and said to the other Apostles: " "Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe" (Acts 15:7). God made the choice that Peter should be the one by whom the Gentiles should hear the word of God. In other words, he had the final word in whatever the council should decide. In Acts 10:9-19, it is Peter who received the vision of the clean and unclean animals. And so James declared, as presider of the council by his temporal authority as Bishop of Jersusalem: "Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles ... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:13-19). Paul, Barnabas, and James all concurred with Peter's declaration. James' speech was not the definitive point of the council's decision. He simply suggested how to implement what Peter had already definitively expressed. It's evident that Peter acted as the head spokesman of the one Apostolic Church. It was he who first stood up after a long debate and formulated a doctrinal judgment, whereas James took the floor after him by way of formality, being the Bishop where the council was being held, to suggest a pastoral plan for adapting the Gospel in communities where Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped together.

"Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,..."
Matthew 10, 2

No where in Acts 15 do we see Peter moderating the Council or acting as its leader. You might wish to read your own church's theology into the passage, but it simply is not true. If your view was true the account would have been rendered quite differently.

justinangel · Dec 19, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
No where in Acts 15 do we see Peter moderating the Council or acting as its leader. You might wish to read your own church's theology into the passage, but it simply is not true. If your view was true the account would have been rendered quite differently.

Acting as a moderator at a council does not necessarily imply universal church leadership. Although the Bishop of Rome didn't preside over the ecumenical councils that were held outside of his temporal jurisdiction, all the decisions reached by the fathers of the councils pertaining to doctrines rested on his definitive judgment and final approval. This is a historical fact. In the first millennium, there was but only one catholic apostolic church whose view wasn't the Protestant or EO view.

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...y/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy”
Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect”
Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4[A.D. 251]

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church”
Ibid., Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]

It is to Peter Jesus says:

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [Matthew 16:17-19].

You still overlook the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to his people a new and special calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."
Dr. Oscar Cullman: Co-editor, Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
Matthew 7, 24

Jesus tells Peter that he will build his church. He is portraying himself as the builder of the church, and not the structure itself. Like the wise man, Jesus chose to build his house on a solid rock foundation. Paul refers to Peter as (Cephas / Rock) several times in his epistles.

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22, 15-22

You will agree that Jesus Christ is the true son of David, the King of Israel, who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David. In Matthew 16, our Lord established a type of "prime minister" (Peter) among his ministers (the Apostles) which has its prelude in the Kingdom of Judah in ancient Israel. Jesus, as King, committed his authority to Peter who shall be a father (pope / papa) to all the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem come down from Heaven (the Church).

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus says, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” Then, in Revelation 3:7, he quotes this very text from Isaiah: 'And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”'

Not unlike the Davidic king, Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. and he hands them on to his vicar (prime minister), namely Peter - not James. Jesus acted through Pope Sixtus lV when he instituted the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception as part of the Church's sacred liturgy, which put a stop to all theological debate over this Marian doctrine among the scholastics. And our Lord spoke through Pope Pius lX when he declared and defined this doctrine a dogma in 1854 to bind it once and for all as a true revelation from God and an article of faith which must be believed by all Christians.

:angel:

bbbbbbb · Dec 19, 2015

justinangel said:
Acting as a moderator at a council does not necessarily imply universal church leadership. Although the Bishop of Rome didn't preside over the ecumenical councils that were held outside of his temporal jurisdiction, all the decisions reached by the fathers of the councils pertaining to doctrines rested on his definitive judgment and final approval. This is a historical fact. In the first millennium, there was but only one catholic apostolic church whose view wasn't the Protestant or EO view.

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...y/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy”
Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect”
Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4[A.D. 251]

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church”
Ibid., Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]

It is to Peter Jesus says:

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [Matthew 16:17-19].

You still overlook the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to his people a new and special calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."
Dr. Oscar Cullman: Co-editor, Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
Matthew 7, 24

Jesus tells Peter that he will build his church. He is portraying himself as the builder of the church, and not the structure itself. Like the wise man, Jesus chose to build his house on a solid rock foundation. Paul refers to Peter as (Cephas / Rock) several times in his epistles.

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22, 15-22

You will agree that Jesus Christ is the true son of David, the King of Israel, who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David. In Matthew 16, our Lord established a type of "prime minister" (Peter) among his ministers (the Apostles) which has its prelude in the Kingdom of Judah in ancient Israel. Jesus, as King, committed his authority to Peter who shall be a father (pope / papa) to all the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem come down from Heaven (the Church).

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus says, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” Then, in Revelation 3:7, he quotes this very text from Isaiah: 'And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”'

Not unlike the Davidic king, Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. and he hands them on to his vicar (prime minister), namely Peter - not James. Jesus acted through Pope Sixtus lV when he instituted the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception as part of the Church's sacred liturgy, which put a stop to all theological debate over this Marian doctrine among the scholastics. And our Lord spoke through Pope Pius lX when he declared and defined this doctrine a dogma in 1854 to bind it once and for all as a true revelation from God and an article of faith which must be believed by all Christians.

The entire concept of a "prime minister" is, interestingly, an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation, specifically in British politics which carried over to European politics. There is no prime minister in most countries today, nor were there prime ministers in any countries prior to the Protestant Reformation. If you wish to base your argument on post-Reformation history, then you will have to do better than that.

justinangel · Dec 19, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
The entire concept of a "prime minister" is, interestingly, an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation, specifically in British politics which carried over to European politics. There is no prime minister in most countries today, nor were there prime ministers in any countries prior to the Protestant Reformation. If you wish to base your argument on post-Reformation history, then you will have to do better than that.

Shebna and Eliakim, who succeeded him in the office, acted as the principal ministers of the court in the reign of King Hezekiah. The king's authority was delegated to them in all matters of state affairs. They held a governing authority next to the king in his name. They weren't called Prime Ministers, but they acted as the primary administrative forces of the king among lesser ministers in the hierarchy who were also in charge of administrative state affairs.

The quote from Isaiah demonstrates how the Lord recognized the office of the king's prime or principal ministers and the ministers who held lesser authority in the kingdom. It also shows the language Jesus intended to use in passing that position in office from Shebna to Eliakim. When our Lord speaks of building his kingdom in Matthew 16, he intentionlly parallels the language used in Isaiah 22. Peter's appointment parallels Eliakim's. On him is conferred the power to bind and loose as he is given the keys to govern the kingdom in our Lord's name. And as that position was handed down from Shebna to Eliakim, so the position of prime minister shall be handed down through Apostolic Succession.

:angel:

bbbbbbb · Dec 19, 2015

justinangel said:
Shebna and Eliakim, who succeeded him in the office, acted as the principal ministers of the court in the reign of King Hezekiah. The king's authority was delegated to them in all matters of state affairs. They held a governing authority next to the king in his name. They weren't called Prime Ministers, but they acted as the primary administrative forces of the king among lesser ministers in the hierarchy who were also in charge of administrative state affairs.

The quote from Isaiah demonstrates how the Lord recognized the office of the king's prime or principal ministers and the ministers who held lesser authority in the kingdom. It also shows the language Jesus intended to use in passing that position in office from Shebna to Eliakim. When our Lord speaks of building his kingdom in Matthew 16, he intentionlly parallels the language used in Isaiah 22. Peter's appointment parallels Eliakim's. On him is conferred the power to bind and loose as he is given the keys to govern the kingdom in our Lord's name. And as that position was handed down from Shebna to Eliakim, so the position of prime minister shall be handed down through Apostolic Succession.

It is an amazingly long stretch to go from the Bible passages you cited to the Papacy and the College of Cardinals. One is better off simply admitting that the Papacy and the College of Cardinals are inventions of the Catholic Magisterium.

justinangel · Dec 20, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
It is an amazingly long stretch to go from the Bible passages you cited to the Papacy and the College of Cardinals. One is better off simply admitting that the Papacy and the College of Cardinals are inventions of the Catholic Magisterium.

It's very easy to say that the Papacy and the College of Cardinals (higher ranking bishops from all over the world who administer in the Holy See at Rome) are inventions of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. But such claims are made by people who are either unfamiliar with the historical facts or dishonestly choose to dismiss them. Read the link I provided on the papacy and the ecumenical councils. It counters the arguments against the papacy made by EO and Protestant historians and scholars. You can also look for and read the letters that were exchanged between the Bishop of Rome (Pope) and Eastern Bishops in the wake of heresy in the East and at the time of the councils. And read what the Church Fathers had to say about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his succession from Peter. All you're doing for now is making an assumption.

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..."
Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192)

Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons."
Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372)

"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons."
Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392)

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once."
Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417)

"It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office."
Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417)

"For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see."
Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420)

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."
Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420)

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430)

"The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?"
Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433)

"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery."
Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445)

:angel:

Paul1963 · Dec 20, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Sadly, however, the apostles did not have the accumulated wisdom of the ECF's from which to pick and choose.

Obviously the apostles did worry about this issue and did not need to pick and choose, other wise it would have been addressed by Jesus. As far as not having the wisdom of the ECF'S they had the wisdom of somwone greater ,Jesus Christ.

Standing Up · Dec 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
It is an amazingly long stretch to go from the Bible passages you cited to the Papacy and the College of Cardinals. One is better off simply admitting that the Papacy and the College of Cardinals are inventions of the Catholic Magisterium.

Believe those things were extant in Rome when Josephus arrived and onward to Clement to Sixtus to Anicetus to Victor etc

bbbbbbb · Dec 21, 2015

Paul1963 said:
Obviously the apostles did worry about this issue and did not need to pick and choose, other wise it would have been addressed by Jesus. As far as not having the wisdom of the ECF'S they had the wisdom of somwone greater ,Jesus Christ.

Yes, and that is why Christians rely on their writings rather than the musings of much later church authorities.

justinangel · Dec 25, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Yes, and that is why Christians rely on their writings rather than the musings of much later church authorities.

What non-Catholic Christians rely on when reading the NT is only the self-conferred authority of their own private judgements and musings. The Church Fathers taught with an authority conferred on them by Christ, through Apostolic succession, and they rightly understood that the Scriptures must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. I suppose you think that the church which Jesus founded came to an end with the death of the last apostle, and from that point on all Christians were left on their own to decide for themselves what ought to be believed and how the church ought to be structured. Ironically, this is how it was for the so-called Protestant reformers and their followers after they separated themselves from the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

:angel:

justinangel · Dec 25, 2015

Standing Up said:
Believe those things were extant in Rome when Josephus arrived and onward to Clement to Sixtus to Anicetus to Victor etc

I'm afraid what you are implying is historically untenable. Call it wishful thinking.

:angel:

Arsenios · Dec 25, 2015

abacabb3 said:
If Christ rebukes a demon He is right.
If a demon rebukes Christ it is wrong.
If Christ rebukes His mother He is right.
If His mother rebukes CHrist she is wrong.

Is there something I am missing?

Well, she came to Him and said: "They have no wine."
And the next line is:

BYZ –
λεγει αυτη ο ιησους
Is saying to her the Jesus
τι εμοι και σοι γυναι
What to me and to you, Woman?
ουπω ηκει η ωρα μου
Not yet is come the hour of me.

So you can dress up this transliteration into smoother English, but your translation is wrong as it reads, because what the Greek states clearly is this: "What is it TO US that they have no wine?" Because He is not yet crucified... And the Church has understood this passage to be Christ blessing Marriage as a Mystery (Sacrament), because it is a TYPOS of the Marriage of the Lamb, which is the Union of God and man that IS our Salvation by Grace through the Faith of Jesus Christ which He gave to us.

Arsenios

Arsenios · Dec 25, 2015

patricius79 said:
He wasn't materially orthodox on that point. But Chrysostom was a faithful Catholic and believer in Peter's Supremacy. I'm sure he would have accepted the correction of the Papacy and other Catholics if the issue had come to a head in his time.

Chrysostom served in Constantinople, after serving in Antioch. He was not in the Latin Church, nor the Coptic Church, nor the Greek Church, nor the Church at Jerusalem, and therefore was not accountable to any of them for correction... However you are right, because he would have accepted correction from the Pope, or from a shoe-shine-boy, were he persuaded of its veracity... He had so much Grace in his Pauline Commentaries that he was a huge target for demonic powers...

But if an error came through him in an homily, I would tend to look for its cause in pastoral issues, which were huge in Constantinople at that time, and ended up in his exile and death...

Arsenios

bbbbbbb · Dec 26, 2015

justinangel said:
What non-Catholic Christians rely on when reading the NT is only the self-conferred authority of their own private judgements and musings. The Church Fathers taught with an authority conferred on them by Christ, through Apostolic succession, and they rightly understood that the Scriptures must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. I suppose you think that the church which Jesus founded came to an end with the death of the last apostle, and from that point on all Christians were left on their own to decide for themselves what ought to be believed and how the church ought to be structured. Ironically, this is how it was for the so-called Protestant reformers and their followers after they separated themselves from the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

And your magesterium has taken the liberty of picking and choosing among the varied writings of the ECFs to find those which conform to their self-promulgated theology. It is a very slippery slope when one enters the world of the writings of the ECFs to prop up non-scriptural doctrines.

Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,

Well-Known Member

Similar threads