Newman says it was a certain man...[he is probably correct]
I feel it means He was referring to the Judiac Laws and the Jewish priesthood ending.
ETA - there is always two things the scriptures refer to - both the present for their time, and the future prophetically.
I could be wrong - but i feel the secure peg was the Jewish Tribes and being authority of scriptures...and in that day - usually means when Chirst comes [to establish the Church.]
This is a very good point, imo.
Yes - the IMMEDIATE context refers to Shebna. God says through the prophet Isaiah to the king to remove Shebna and to give the key of the office to Eliakim and to pass on to him the king's authority. "In that day" - meaning the day that the authority of the king is removed from one steward and given to the next steward is the context in which a peg is removed from "a secure place" - the kingdom. So the immediate context refers to Shebna. It is not referring to the office itself being removed.
The secondary meaning - since this is the words of a prophet and his words usually have more than just the immediate meaning - can also be understood to mean that the priesthood of Israel (the Davidic kingdom) itself is supposed to remain a faithful steward to the people, and therefore THEY will be cut off and a new steward will be ordained for this purpose.
__________________
I Am Catholic
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." G.K. Chesterton
Yes - the IMMEDIATE context refers to Shebna. God says through the prophet Isaiah to the king to remove Shebna and to give the key of the office to Eliakim and to pass on to him the king's authority. "In that day" - meaning the day that the authority of the king is removed from one steward and given to the next steward is the context in which a peg is removed from "a secure place" - the kingdom. So the immediate context refers to Shebna. It is not referring to the office itself being removed.
The secondary meaning - since this is the words of a prophet and his words usually have more than just the immediate meaning - can also be understood to mean that the priesthood of Israel (the Davidic kingdom) itself is supposed to remain a faithful steward to the people, and therefore THEY will be cut off and a new steward will be ordained for this purpose.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"St Michael the ArchAngel, defend us in battle."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Matthew Chapter 7
7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."
Rats. I just lost a couple of hours of work when the last thread was closed. I was working on it for a long time, hit "preview" and it said "thread is closed" and didn't preview anything. All lost. I will have to start over again, except I don't have the time or the energy to re-write it. Oh well.
After posting the other night (my time) it occurred to me that since the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist was determined by theological arguments, it would stand to reason that a change in the kind of bread used would also indicate a change in the underlying theology. Since Constantinople was not privy to the historical reasons why Rome had changed to using unleavened bread, it would naturally assume that Rome had changed her theology. Hence the charges of heresy in 1054.
John
I'd be very interested if we could develop this thought a bit more. Leavened vs. unleavened came up before on this thread. What theological arguments were there? Here's what I understand.
The East uses Leavened Bread in communion because they associate more with John's gospel in which Christ is shown crucified before Passover (they did not enter the Roman Praetorium with Christ before Pilate in order not to defile themselves because they had not had Passover).
The West uses Unleavened Bread in communion because they associate more with the Synoptics in which Christ is shown crucified after Passover (Christ desires to eat this Passover before He suffers).
Sounds like a contradiction, which contributed to the schism (of course, IMO, the fact of changing the days and dates of crucifixion and resurrection didn't help either).
I've also heard that at one time all the churches used leavened bread.
Incidentally, the four gospels don't contradict, but we'd have to look at some biblical history to understand it.
Thoughts? Comments?
(BTW WA, RCC was the reason John's Gospel later came under question, (in response to your comment in (3).)
BUMP (again from 3)--looking for a reply or two. C'mon folks ...
Originally Posted by Standing Up
If you would please, is it the RCC (and Orthodox) position, an Immutable Truth (or whatever the Orthodox call it) as it were, that the resurrection of Christ Jesus was on a Sunday morning?
IOW, is Jesus' death and burial on Friday and resurrection Sunday morning a "previously defined Immutable Truth"?
I do not think people who have subscribed for the other thread are aware a new one has started....or the old one is closed.... so please be patient here as they have first to come in and check out this new thread
__________________ No one on this earth can avoid affliction; and although the
afflictions which the Lord sends are not great men imagine them
beyond their strength and are crushed by them. This is because
they will not humble their souls and commit themselves to the will
of God. But the Lord Himself guides with His grace those who are
given over to God's will, and they bear all things with fortitude
for the sake of God Whom they have so loved and with Whom they are
glorified for ever. It is impossible to escape tribulation in this
world but the man who is giver over to the will of God bears
tribulation easily, seeing it but putting his trust in the Lord,
and so his tribulations pass.
"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
I'll make clear what the Pope actually is. Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors, just as many things in the New Testament are fulfillments of their Old Testament "types".
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)
In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the abouve text and in other historical documents. There were many "ministers" to the king, but only one Prine Minister, sometimes known as the "Vizier" of the House of David.
So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. So, the apostles, steeped in their Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the "Keys". Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".
So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom: The Kings's representative, or "vicar" if you will. But the Pope also has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."
This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .
So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):
"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. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... 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. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone 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?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Can you show me any Church Fathers that linked the single key of David with the keys of Peter?
(I asked WA on a former part of this thread and was met with silence). Hopefully you can shed more light on this interesting part.
__________________ Fàilte dhut a Mhoire, tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
From Post #991 of the previous thread... can't let these ones go
NewMan said Firstly, I don't think anyone here (much less me) has denied that John wrote to the Pope and two other Western Bishops...
Actually Warrior Angel did exactly that. You did too, until I cited the historians who said he did. Then you denied it by saying the historians were wrong
Next
"To which Montalban implied that John wrote to them because they were all equally influential...and IF that is the case...ergo...the Pope was regarded as no different (by John) than any other Bishop in the West. "
No. I did not 'imply' it at all. I cited historians who said that this was the case. You wanted to debate over the word 'copy', and then I cited a Vatican City site that said exactly the same as the two historians I had cited at that point (later I'd add another historian saying the same thing). To which you replied with silence on this matter.
I see however in that post you point to a reply you gave to Thekla on another matter and then you say that John Chrysostom wrote to the other two Westerners to "keep them in the loop". This is, unfortunately more of your speculation, based as it is on your a prioir assumptions about the papacy. You don't look at the facts and draw a conclusion, but have a conclusion and fit the facts as best you can into that.
__________________ Fàilte dhut a Mhoire, tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Hail Mary, full of Grace;
The Lord is with thee
Last edited by Montalban; 22nd June 2009 at 05:37 AM.
I do not think people who have subscribed for the other thread are aware a new one has started....or the old one is closed.... so please be patient here as they have first to come in and check out this new thread
G'day!
What do you think of the Bible verse
2 Corinthians 11:28
Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.
Paul writes this of himself. We already know he taught the same as Peter did (Galatians 2:7). Here we see him having concern for all the churches too, just as Peter did.
__________________ Fàilte dhut a Mhoire, tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Hail Mary, full of Grace;
The Lord is with thee
Last edited by Montalban; 22nd June 2009 at 05:37 AM.
Linear Mode
