"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]).
Concerning this quote, much of it has been doctored. It should read like this:
Originally Posted by St. Cyprian
The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”
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.
hmmm... it does tells me that Paul does talk about his local churches in Corinth maybe the universal church is afterall the concept of the local churches that they considered also universal...Not sure just thinking aloud here... I am sure I am not even close
__________________ 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.
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 don't understand the question. And, I don't even know what IOW is. I'm not that net-savvy
__________________ Fāilte dhut a Mhoire, tha thu lan de na grāsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
“When we were discussing Ephesus we could see the way in which St. Cyril took care to get the support of the Pope. I can see that way back Montalban made the point that this did not mean he was acting as Celestine's delegate, but it is clear from the literature that he did take care to act in Celestine's name; we can quibble over what that meant, but Cyril himself said that it was a 'longstanding' custom to refer to Rome; clearly the advent of Constantinople as the new imperial capital and the desire of the emperor to use the Church to keep good order in his empire, helped create a new dynamic in which old custom and practice needed spelling out in a way it never is until change comes. But we should treat the Byzantine claims with the same scepticism some here treat those of the Papacy.”If one reads a history of this from “St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts” by John Anthony McGuckin or Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy one will find that Cyril used all manner of methods to curry favour, including, unfortunately, bribes. This is not to cast ill of this Saint, for he used all manner of means to have the faith defended. But it also gives some context to any incidence that appears to be bowing to the Pope.
Your own ‘documents’ are unreferenced. I have no idea what ones to which you casually refer to here. I have also mentioned so many times that I accept people referred to Rome. It was the habit of looking to a neighbouring See in matters of dispute.
Post #990 NewMan said Assuming I have correctly represented your position (but...admittedly...I could be wrong)...I want to point out that disregarding or disobeying a Pope is not evidence either for or against papal authority. Papal authority - if it exists - would be an objective reality whether it is obeyed or not.
There have been times (very few of them, thank goodness) when my children have either disregarded or disobeyed me. Does this mean that I am not in authority over them? My parental authority exists outside of my children's regard or obedience.
So to us, for you to claim that the regard or obedience of a given Eastern Bishop or group of Bishops or whatever is evidence or proof that the Pope was not authoritative...well...it is problematic to judge authority by the level of obedience by others. All that being said - if there is evidence of disregard or disobedience, it is fair to ask the question if the Pope really had the right to assert himself as an authority figure in a given situation - but the fact it is ignored or disobeyed can only tell us so much
And yet apparently when they ‘appeal’ to him it is evidence of obedience!
Fortunately we have instances where the Pope wasn’t just disobeyed, but ignored. An example of such is John Chrysostom taking holy orders from a man not in communion with the Pope. We have the first Ecumenical Council called without need for the Pope’s ratification.
__________________ Fāilte dhut a Mhoire, tha thu lan de na grāsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
I don't understand the question. And, I don't even know what IOW is. I'm not that net-savvy
IOW meaning is in other words.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Jehovah, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth; You have set Your glory above the heavens! Psa 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, You have ordained strength, because of the ones distressing You, to cause the enemy and the avenger to cease. Psa 8:3 When I look upon Your heavens, the work of Your fingers: the moon and the stars which You have fixed; Psa 8:4 what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him? Psa 8:5 For You have made him lack a little from God; and have crowned him with glory and honor. Psa 8:6 You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all under his feet: Psa 8:7 all flocks and oxen, and also the animals of the field, Psa 8:8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, all that pass through the sea. Psa 8:9 O Jehovah, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!
Jesus said He didnt come to remove the Law but fulfill it.
IE - a type was already set up - He was fulfilling that type.
He didnt end the way things were set up - HE instead [removed the peg that was in a sure place and[ put His new priesthood in place.
The 'type' of the Church to come was already prophecied. The 'type' of Covenant was prophecied.
Why didnt Jesus say - upon this Rock I will set a new Temple?
No, He set up a new priesthood sans Aaron & the others - and gave a new covenant....fulfilled.
HOW the new Church was to work was already foreshadowed.
12 tribes - 12 Apostles.
[Not forgetting one tribe was put out of favor - hence Judas]
One tribe was choosen - hence Peter.
NOT all the tribes were going to produce the Messiah - after all Mary was only one person.
I think Rick - if you again read the OT - you wll see how it was set up - seeing how the Church was set up - the formula with the new Covenant of His Body and Blood was fulfilled.
Christ didnt come to change that He had everything established - but who would be His new 'tribes' and their procuring the NEW COVENANT..hence He fulfilled the laws. ALL laws.
Its no mistake that the Liturgy is a mirror of the synagogues [and Temple]
Originally Posted by Montalban
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.
David was king - right?
David is human - right?
David handed off the key to his successors - right?
Jesus became human - right?
Jesus held the keys as King - right?
Jesus handed them to someone in His place [His absense in the HUMAN world] - right?
Isaias time knew a key existed and explained how at his time it were to be passed on, David also held the keys spoken of by Isaias - because obviously the key represents 'passing it to someone entrusting the whole Kingdom' in every generation that someone would pass them on in the absense of a King...
Just because Jesus didnt speak of the keys in Matt 16 inferring them to David - doesnt mean they didnt udnerstand, and that HE didnt further explain them in the 40 days after He already rose.
I quoted previously by St Ireneaus that the APOSLTES didnt give privy information to the laity and only to those whom they taught.
ST Ireneaus knew this - and said they didnt give it asll away in order to keep the priesthood pure.
HOW DOES THAT WORK?
Well, if everyone who was a heretic had the information taught solely to the disciples - then it would have corrupted the pure and 'secret' teachings of the Lord in their times and anyone could make claims using the doctrines they established orally.
Jesus is a fine example of not explaining everything to everyone - always pulling His Apostles aside to explain things to them while leaving the general population scratching their heads.
So - maybe the fathers later wrote on it, maybe they didnt...i havent looked.
But the use of keys is in fact an obvious profession of succession and a steward of the house of the KING.
Because THAT IS WHAT THEY DID BACK THEN.
However; Revelation 3 shows Jesus speaking to the one with the keys of David - telling 'him' although they have little faith they will pass the trials that will be on all the earth ...
Telling ONE person that...
A single person. That could mean a single See and all those who follow his direction?
Why tempt fate?
Originally Posted by Montalban
Let's set the records straight
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.
Well, this tells me that maybe something is amiss in your reporting what NewMan wrote and you missed it.
He did further study of whom St John C wrote to and he wrote to two imperial Western court Bishops who had influence over an Eastern imperial court Bishop who happened to be the brother of the Bishop in the West that John wrote to.
Now it makes sense he would write to them since: 1) There were more influential Bishops [IN The Church itself] than the 2 he choose but the others in the West were not enough influence [within the Church itself] to give an authoritative stance. 2) They had a brother in the Eastern court who would be able to help him thru the court. 3) The Pope is the only one who had the authority to tell the INSIDE Bishops of the Church - to knock it off. 4) AS NewMan asked - would like to see the answer - why didnt John go to another Eastern Bishop if the Pope [who is in the West] didnt have the authority to step in??
__________________
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."
Last edited by WarriorAngel; 22nd June 2009 at 10:32 AM.
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"?
Originally Posted by Montalban
I don't understand the question. And, I don't even know what IOW is. I'm not that net-savvy
IOW = in other words
Hope this is accurate: NewMan99 laid out the idea that it's ok to discuss doctrine or dogma versus CJ's point RCC must accept dogma "docily". NM drew the line for no more discussion at "previously defined Immutable Truths".
I suppose RCC may want to define that more, but my question is whether the "Truth" of Christ's resurrection on Sunday falls into that?
IOW, has RCC (or Orthodox) said once for all for all time, this (Christ died on Fridy and rose on Sunday) is a "previously defined Immutable Truth", thus speaketh RCC?
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.
I'm not sure it even rates a mention in the footnotes of the Catholic Catechism. You'd think that something which so 'obviously' deals with the office of the Papacy would get good coverage in the catechism, or at times in history when Rome has been declaring or defending the Papal office this surely would have got a mention. Why would they bother with something like the False Decretals if they had stuff like this to present? So where does it get a mention?
God - as He did on earth in His parables, did not disclose all mysteries to all ppl.
But the understanding of the Church that Peter holds the keys - as evidenced in all the writings, does not need to procure further on the point of what KEYS Peter received since the use of Keys is only used in the Judiac line to show guardianship and authority to unlock and lock the doors of the Kingdom of the King.
And that's hard to comprehend - why?
__________________
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."
So the law has not been fulfilled? It is not fading away? It has not been abolished for those whom are in Christ? Are we not dead to the law?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Jehovah, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth; You have set Your glory above the heavens! Psa 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, You have ordained strength, because of the ones distressing You, to cause the enemy and the avenger to cease. Psa 8:3 When I look upon Your heavens, the work of Your fingers: the moon and the stars which You have fixed; Psa 8:4 what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him? Psa 8:5 For You have made him lack a little from God; and have crowned him with glory and honor. Psa 8:6 You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all under his feet: Psa 8:7 all flocks and oxen, and also the animals of the field, Psa 8:8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, all that pass through the sea. Psa 8:9 O Jehovah, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!
maybe the universal church is afterall the concept of the local churches that they considered also universal...Not sure just thinking aloud here... I am sure I am not even close 
Linear Mode
