Peter Is Not The Rock!

[JimfromOhio]

After a long day at work, I am not going to catch up reading this thread.

 

[beamishboy]

Indeed, all things are possible, but not all things are probable. It is quite possible that Trento is God, however I think most of us would agree that it is highly improbable that he really is. What you have stated is a truism that your view, along with everyone else's view on this matter, is possible. The real question ought to be how probable is it? Do you care to offer any ideas on that?

I agree with what you are saying. Anglian too likes to say that. RCCs are right and the Orthodox, even though they disagree with RCCs, are also right!!! Only the Protestants are wrong.

But they stand indicted by the Word of God. The Bible is sharper than any two-edged sword and as long as I'm right according to Scriptures, that's all that matters.

Jesus spoke countless times about the Word of God. Did He say the Word of God and Tradition? All I know is he always castigated the Pharisees for sticking to Tradition. As did Paul's epistles.

What CaliforniaJosiah wrote in #1463 is very true and interesting. The beamishboy finds his posts a bit difficult to understand. What is norma norman???? The name of a transexual??? Hehe, I'm so witty. But if you read on, he really makes a lot of intellectual sense. Yes, because they believe in Tradition, once a Tradition crops up, they will twist Scriptures to "support" Tradition and say that they are interpreting Scriptures in the light of Tradition. But that simply means they will make sure that Scriptures accommodate Tradition. That's why when I didn't understand this, I was quite upset with some of the RCC interpretations (to the two passages I used to put up as my temporary signature) because the interpretations clearly did violence to the scriptural passages. Now I understand better. They have to accommodate Tradition so the Bible HAD BETTER mean what they want it to mean.

As for me and myself (substitute "household" for those of you with wife and kids), I will follow the Word of God.

 

[Brennin]

Yes he does give the authority to bind and loose. They did not receive this authority when Jesus gave it to Peter. Nor did Jesus say anything about the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 18. In fact you will not find anywhere in scripture where Jesus relates the Keys to the other Apostles. It is only by an individuals choice to read in to the text something that is not clear to them that we find people saying the other Apostles received the Keys as well.

It is a common error or choice (depending on how you view it). Even the Early Church had great men that said the other Apsotles had use of the Keys or had Keys. In those letters you will still find that Peter had more power then the other Apsotles. That should be sufficient for now.

Keys bind and loose, so Jesus most certainly gave the "keys" to the other apostles. Peter received them first, which makes him first among equals, no more and no less.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Dear Jack,

If we go back to the OP, and to some of the earlier posts, we see that the ECFs took the view that Rome had a primacy of honour; it is the definition of what that means which has contributed to the problems in the Church.

If we look at another of the pillars of Holy Tradition, the Councils, we can see from the canons of Nicaea that Rome was not, at that time, claiming jurisdictional authority over, for example, Alexandria (look at canon 6). That said, Alexandria certainly consulted Rome, as did the other Patriarchal Sees, so to argue that in the early Church Rome was not primus inter pares would be wrong.

What we see before the fifth century is a tradition of honour to Rome which, before then, needed no close definition as no one claimed anything attached to it by way of jurisdiction. However, with the collapse of the Western Empire, it became very important in the West that Rome, as the sole Apostolic See, was recognised as having jurisdictional authority. At no point before the sixteenth century did people in the West challenge that; those in the West who departed from that custom and practice have their reasons for so doing; nonetheless, they did depart from ancient custom.

In the East, where there was no collapse of the Empire, and where Rome had not had jurisdictional authority, the claims of Leo I were heard, but not concurred with. It was only with the Arab invasions and the disappearance from the scene of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, that the trouble between Constantinople and Rome began to become severe. The other Sees had always played a collegial role; without them there were two centres, using two different languages and with two different secular powers; it is hardly surprising that trouble came.

So, to sum up. The East is right to claim it never understood the Petrine verses as giving the Bishop of Rome more than a primacy of honour; but then it has never defined what that means. The West is also right in claiming that its understanding of the Petrine claims developed as they have; but its definition is not, I suspect, as well understood as it ought to be; the looseness with which non-Catholics write about Infallibility often suggest a reaction to a particular notion of what it means rather than an accurate appreciation of its reality.

This explains why all sides in this dispute can stake a claim for their own tradition; we are, in fact, dealing with different traditions which interpret an originally broad and vague understanding (what, after all, does primacy of honour actually mean?) with more precision than it was given in times when everyone thought they knew what it meant.

peace,

Anglian

Anglian,

I understand your view on this.

As I said to Brennin there were Early Church Fathers that had varying views of this Petrine theology and these were learned men.

This is not a topic I wish to get into too deep a discussion with an Orthodox brother because it is wisest to stick to what my leaders and your leaders decide. I know there is much effort from the RCC to bring OOC into a communion again.

I think you wish to see the churchs brought into communion again as well.

But it would not much gopod to discuss that in a thread like this... I would like further discussion via PM if you want to, otherwise I am content to leave it to our Patriarchs to decide.

Peace,

Jack

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Keys bind and loose, so Jesus most certainly gave the "keys" to the other apostles. Peter received them first, which makes him first among equals, no more and no less.

Binding and loosing are legal terms and intended as such. Even though these terms are used in law we do not see judges with keys so they can decide on law and make law. In this way binding and loosing is understood in my post.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is not a topic I wish to get into too deep a discussion with an Orthodox brother because it is wisest to stick to what my leaders and your leaders decide. I know there is much effort from the RCC to bring OOC into a communion again.

But ya don't mind doing it with defective Protestants? My, sounds like thou art showing favoritism here. Naughty boy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No one has tried to say the others recieved the keys Jack, but by common choice or error, sectarian supremacism is served by not recognizing that the authority conferred to the others in Matt 18 is exactly the same as the authority symbolized by the keys figuratively given to Peter.

Catholic theology and doctrine say that the power given was equal in regards to being able to bind and loose. But what is overlooked by many is that the holder of the Keys has the power to loose what has been bound and bind what has been loosed. This is house those powers worked then and how they worked in Isaiah 22 and how they work now. That is how they work even if they are not understood that way by all. That is what I have been taught and believe. It is also plausible for anyone choosing to put it under a microscope and disprove it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But ya don't mind doing it with defective Protestants? My, sounds like thou art showing favoritism here. Naughty boy.

LLoJ you know the teachings on this.

But I can provide a link to a document from the Vatican which explains how the Catholic church understand churches like yours. I say this so you can have it from the horse's mouth.

 

[Photini]

All I know is he always castigated the Pharisees for sticking to Tradition. As did Paul's epistles.

?

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

I know that this is not the first time you have seen this verse.

 

[beamishboy]

LLoJ you know the teachings on this.

But I can provide a link to a document from the Vatican which explains how the Catholic church understand churches like yours. I say this so you can have it from the horse's mouth.

Why would LLoJ bother about what Vatican thinks of his church? For me personally, if I am commended by the Pope, I should be most worried. I would be as worried as I should be if the Dalai Lama or the Ayatollah commends me for my religious beliefs. If the Pope heaps me with anathemas and curses, I should be pleased because then, I can be sure that I am in the same category as the great Reformers. Wow!!! A nice lovely Papal Bull "Unam Anathemanos de Beamishboyanos" - I'd frame it and hang it in my room!

 

[beamishboy]

Anglian,

I understand your view on this.

As I said to Brennin there were Early Church Fathers that had varying views of this Petrine theology and these were learned men.

This is not a topic I wish to get into too deep a discussion with an Orthodox brother because it is wisest to stick to what my leaders and your leaders decide. I know there is much effort from the RCC to bring OOC into a communion again.

I think you wish to see the churchs brought into communion again as well.

But it would not much gopod to discuss that in a thread like this... I would like further discussion via PM if you want to, otherwise I am content to leave it to our Patriarchs to decide.

Peace,

Jack

Why? You'd rather sweep your claws-and-nails differences under the carpet? The beamishboy knows the bitter chasm between the RCC and the Orthodox. But don't worry. An appearance of amicability won't mean a thing to me. I've already said unity doesn't mean a thing to me - it's no guarantee of truth and correctness. The Mormons are VERY united. So are cults including the Jonestown cult whose members even drank cyanide in unison. But if there is false teaching, if there is heresy in the church, no amount of unity can purge it. They'd only be united in heresy. I hope you understand how the average Protestant views things. What's not from Scriptures is thrown out of the window. And please don't mention the Trinity again like all your co-religionists. Terminology is not important. Whether you call Him Trinity or Ooongaooonga makes no difference. The teaching of the Trinity is from the Bible and if you need help with that, PM me and I'll give you the Beamishboy's Bible Lesson No. 1.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

But they stand indicted by the Word of God. The Bible is sharper than any two-edged sword and as long as I'm right according to Scriptures, that's all that matters.

Jesus spoke countless times about the Word of God. Did He say the Word of God and Tradition? All I know is he always castigated the Pharisees for sticking to Tradition. As did Paul's epistles.

brother, the 'word of God' can either be written OR spoken.

In the Bible, it says that the Church is the foundation of all truth...

and also, there's Thessalonians 2:15

there's a difference between tradition and Tradition..

What Christ was against is not Tradition, as you said, but He was against how the Pharisees forgot all about love and put the law above God. There are many 'traditional Christians' who don't do this, and who are loving people.

God bless

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

?

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

I know that this is not the first time you have seen this verse.

Whoa! Lookie here! JESUS is saying the same thing to this Assembly :o

2 Thess 2:15 So then brothers! be ye standing firm and be ye holding/krateite <2902> (5720) to the traditions which ye were taught whether thru word or thru epistle of us.

Reve 2:25 Morely, which ye are having hold/krathsate <2902> (5657) ye! until which ever I should be arriving.

 

[Photini]

Why? You'd rather sweep your claws-and-nails differences under the carpet?

This is not the thread for it. This thread is about Peter.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why would LLoJ bother about what Vatican thinks of his church?

It may be because he asked.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why?

Because it has nothing to do with you or many others here. Let us try to stick to the topic.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is not the thread for it. This thread is about Peter.

Thanks... I just read this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why? You'd rather sweep your claws-and-nails differences under the carpet? The beamishboy knows the bitter chasm between the RCC and the Orthodox. But don't worry. An appearance of amicability won't mean a thing to me. I've already said unity doesn't mean a thing to me - it's no guarantee of truth and correctness. The Mormons are VERY united. So are cults including the Jonestown cult whose members even drank cyanide in unison. But if there is false teaching, if there is heresy in the church, no amount of unity can purge it. They'd only be united in heresy. I hope you understand how the average Protestant views things. What's not from Scriptures is thrown out of the window. And please don't mention the Trinity again like all your co-religionists. Terminology is not important. Whether you call Him Trinity or Ooongaooonga makes no difference. The teaching of the Trinity is from the Bible and if you need help with that, PM me and I'll give you the Beamishboy's Bible Lesson No. 1.

Kinda makes us a sorta Paul when he got the Sadducees and Pharisees all riled up

Acts 5:17 Rising yet the Chief-Priest and all those together to-him--the being a sect/airesiV <139> of the Sadducees they are filled of-jealousy/boiling
Acts 23:7 This yet of him saying, there became a dissension of the Pharisees and Sadducees; and is split the throng.
8 For Sadducees indeed are saying no to be a resurrection, nor messenger, nor spirit, Pharisees yet are avowing the both.
9 Became a clamor, great and up-standing any of the Scribes of the sect of the Pharisees striving saying nothing evil we are finding in the man, this, if yet a spirit speaks to him or a messenger.

 

[Brennin]

Binding and loosing are legal terms and intended as such. Even though these terms are used in law we do not see judges with keys so they can decide on law and make law. In this way binding and loosing is understood in my post.

No, "binding and loosing" refers to the action of the keys.

deô

luô

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, "binding and loosing" refers to the action of the keys.

deô

luô

Interesting. Feminine Keys

Matthew 16:19 "I shall be giving to thee the Keys/F of the kingdom/F of the heavens/M. And which if-ever thou should be binding/dhshV <1210> (5661) upon the land/F, shall be having been bound/dedemenon <1210> (5772) in the heavens, and which if-ever thou should be loosing/lushV <3089> (5661) upon the land, shall be having been loosed/lelumenon <3089> (5772) in the heavens.