• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Unbiblical teachings from the church.

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I think that number is a misconception & exaggeration, based on careless reading of the book that stat is taken from. As this article explains.

"What does the 40,000 figure really mean?

First of all, it’s always important to do a fact check. The World Christian Encyclopedia, one of the two sources from which the 40,000 number is taken, has a very specific definition of ‘denomination’ for the purposes of its study. As you can see here, they define a denomination as an organized Christian group within a specific country. So, for example, although there is only one Roman Catholic Church, over 200 Roman Catholic ‘denominations’ are listed – one ‘denomination’ for each national body of Roman Catholics.

So it is quite misleading to say that there are 40,000 denominations worldwide, if by that we mean that there are 40,000 organised bodies of Christians who are divided against each other.

The actual number of denominations is a far smaller number (they count 300 major ecclesiastical traditions worldwide, grouped into 6 ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs), and even across denominations there is significant partnership and unity...."

The complete article can be read here: 40,000 Denominations Worldwide – Christianity Divided? - The Ben Smart Blog

The figure of 40,000 is a blunder. Not only that, but the catholicity and unity of Protestantism are routinely overlooked by those who use and repeat this figure. (So, often, are the tensions & disunity within the CC.) Love of truth (something constantly mentioned in Catholic apologetic) requires Catholics to be scrupulously honest and fair-minded when discussing other Christians.

Are you really trying to make an excuse for the ocean of divisive groups under the Protestant banner? Sure, we have our various rites and orders, but we're largely in fellowship.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry, but you've either misunderstood, or are ignoring, my point.

Let's cut to the chase because I think you're misunderstanding my point. Jesus stated to Peter...

Matthew 16:18-19
New Catholic Bible
18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

First, Jesus is foundational to the entire Church. We're talking ecclesiology not soteriology. Jesus appointed Peter to lead the Church in His physical absence. Peter was given the "keys to kingdom of heaven", with the authority to "bind and loose" in general. We know what that means... the authority to establish doctrine, morality, and practice. Now, we do not read anywhere where any other Apostle was granted this authority. St. Peter was the first among equals, the leader of the team. While I believe the Church no doubt sought consensus, the buck ultimately stopped with St. Peter. And Peter passed this authority on to his successors as is recorded in the Church Fathers. Christ's Church has always been an actual, solid, ecclesiastical body. It isn't some invisible wispy association of disassociated individuals. She held councils and defined proper doctrine. Her Councils produced the Scriptures, and even the theological language you no doubt use if you are an orthodox Christian theologically.

I'll lay the same challenge I've laid before others. Can you provide any evidence that anyone other than Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven with the generalized authority to bind and loose? No. Because it isn't in Scripture. The structure of the Catholic Church began in Matthew 16:17-18. And it has remained this way throughout the TWENTY centuries.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So you've been taught.

Scripture does not, anywhere, address, or refer to Mary in this way.
The angel did not say "Hail Mary, queen of heaven".

You need to go back and read my post again. When an Archangel bows before you and speaks saying, "Hail!...", it is as one greets royalty. However here, the angel hails Mary as his Queen. It's pretty simple. If Mary isn't Gabriel's Queen... then Gabriel was woefully out of line.

The early church never appealed to Mary to intercede for them, have a word with her Son or anything else. Even when we read that Mary was in a prayer meeting, Acts 1, there is no suggestion that she led it. No one said "let's get the queen of heaven to speak to us/pray for us/decide church practice/appoint bishops/convert these people" etc etc. Mary is not mentioned again after Acts 1.

Actually, Mary intercedes for those at the Wedding in Cana by imploring that Christ act, and He does so in honor of His mother, even though He stated it isn't His time. I should also mention something many Protestants ignore. The NT Gospels didn't just fall out of Heaven into the lap of the writers. Nor were they communicated in vision. Many stories told were related to the writer by the parties involved... because the writer was clearly not present for them. For example, the Annunciation. How did Luke know those details? Well, who was there to communicate them to him? St. Mary. In fact, if you investigate every portion of the Gospel narrative, it is quite probable that the Gospel writers received nearly a 3rd to half of their Gospels from St. Mary herself. For she was the one typically present or was most likely to have been present in most cases. You almost have to read the story behind the story to fully appreciate Mary's impact on the NT.

The only time the phrase "queen of heaven" is used in the Bible is when Jeremiah condemned the ungodly practice of burning incense to the queen of heaven, Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah 44:17-26.

The pagan queen of heaven isn't the Gebirah (גְּבִירָה) of Ancient Israel. Remember, it was dishonorable for a king NOT to elevate His Mother to be Queen. Did Jesus, the King of Kings, seated upon the throne of His ancestor David, dishonor His mother??? To acknowledge Mary's status as Queen of Heaven, Queen of Saints, is to affirm Christ's Kingship. To deny it is to deny Christ's Kingship. It's an ancient Jewish custom that Protestants are woefully ignorant of.

Not to mention, St. Mary's assumption and coronation is understood as being reflected in Revelation 12 following Satan's attempt to destroy the Holy Family, and Christ's birth and ascension are alluded to. Any Jewish reader would instantly see St. Mary depicted as the Heavenly Gebirah, or Queen Mother, crowned with 12 stars, serving as the very symbol of the Church itself.

Mary36.jpg
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, of course; the serpent was told that the woman's offspring would crush him.
This is a prophecy that Christ, the Son of Mary, would defeat the devil on the cross.

But it is Christ who fulfils this prophecy and Christ who defeats the evil one.
Christ is Saviour and Victor.
Just because people are mentioned in prophecies from God does not mean they are to be honoured, deserve special honour or a special place in the church. Otherwise Judas Iscariot would be honoured in this way - as would the Pharisees and chief priests.

You're glossing over a detail... while you're right about the prophecy featuring Satan's ultimate defeat at the hands of "Her offspring" (Christ)... God promises that He will establish hostility (enmity) between Satan and... "the woman"... Satan's line (or followers) and her line (or followers, Revelation 12:17)...

Genesis 3:15
New Catholic Bible
15 I will establish hostility
between you and the woman,
between your line and her line.
Her offspring will crush your head
and you will bruise his heel.”​

Revelation 12:17
New Catholic Bible
17 Then the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war on the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.​

Jesus is the Second Adam, His obedience unto death purchased salvation for all mankind, reversing Adam's sin. However, Mary's obedience and willingness to allow herself to be used to bring forth the Savior, counters Eve's sin. We're seeing a clear prophecy regarding a redemptive plan involving both a Mother & Son. And we are her offspring also ("rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus), making her our Mother.

I know these interpretations are not Protestant, but they are the oldest interpretations of these texts. The Catholic Church didn't just make all this up, it is in Scripture. One simply has to understand the Scriptures as they were understood 2,000 years ago to see it.

In a very real way... Catholicism is about joining a family.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,846
8,379
50
The Wild West
✟778,957.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I think where we disagree is the use of pronouns in Christ's appointment of Peter.

Matthew 16:18-19
New Catholic Bible
18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

So, here... I can see Jesus specifically giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. However, I cannot find where Jesus gives the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to any other person, or speaks of Peter as being a "type" of the Apostles. Can you show otherwise from Scripture?



I know opinions vary regarding the stylization of icons. However, for me personally, I love the more Eastern style of icons. Here's my home altar...


View attachment 316317

Beautiful. You ought to consider visiting a Byzantine Rite Catholic parish.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,846
8,379
50
The Wild West
✟778,957.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Actually, Mary intercedes for those at the Wedding in Cana by imploring that Christ act, and He does so in honor of His mother, even though He stated it isn't His time.
Indeed, this incident and the Magnificat form the basis for the Hail Mary prayer. I myself seek the Intercession of the Theotokos frequently and recommend it to all Christians. If one wants to develop a personal relationship with Jesus*, it makes sense to develop a personal relationship with His mother.

I should also mention something many Protestants ignore.

Fortunately, traditional liturgical Protestants such as Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Moravians and Congregationalists, who tend to jave seminary education and some intellectual sophistication, do pay attention to the origin of the New Testament. Unfortunately liberal theology has resulted in an excess of attention being paid to corrupt or heretical Gnostic Gospels, with the infamous Jesus Seminar concluding that the obviously corrupted, and possibly forged “Gospel of Thomas” (I myself think it is a careful Gnostic corruption of a legitimate list of sayings of our Lord used in the early Church) is a more reliable source of sayings of our Lord than the Gospel According to St. John, which is of course pure insanity.

The NT Gospels didn't just fall out of Heaven into the lap of the writers. Nor were they communicated in vision. Many stories told were related to the writer by the parties involved... because the writer was clearly not present for them. For example, the Annunciation. How did Luke know those details? Well, who was there to communicate them to him? St. Mary. In fact, if you investigate every portion of the Gospel narrative, it is quite probable that the Gospel writers received nearly a 3rd to half of their Gospels from St. Mary herself. For she was the one typically present or was most likely to have been present in most cases. You almost have to read the story behind the story to fully appreciate Mary's impact on the NT.

This is a very good point. Based on tradition, I think we can say St. Luke probably had two sources, St. Mary and St. Paul, and likewise St. John had St. Mary and his own recollections, the same applying to St. Matthew, whereas St. Mark had St. Peter as a source.

* Of course, developing a personal relationship with Jesus is a benefit of being saved through responding to faith in Him by joining the Church, or in the case of those fortunate enough to be baptized into the Church as infants, by participating in the salvific Sacraments of the Church, particularly the Eucharist, for the Church is saved as a whole, as the Bride of Christ. The development of a personal relationship with Christ is not, as some evangelicals claim, the means of salvation, but it is possible to develop a relationship with the prosopa of the Holy Trinity, including our Lord, and the Christians who are alive in Heaven, such as the Blessed Virgin Mary. I also have a devotion to a great many other saints, including but not limited to Saints John the Theologian, Thomas the Apostle, Stephen the Protomartyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius, Basil, Nicholas of Myra, Helena, Anthony the Great, Nektarios of Pentapolis, and the Coptic child-martyr Abanoub, a 12 year old Christian boy put to death under Diocletian, who is one of several saints who has miraculously appeared, in his case in once incident encouraging some Coptic youths playing in the road to join him in the church parking lot, where they played, and a large truck passed which would have killed the boys if St. Abanoub had not intervened with the blessing of God. I also have a devotion to my guardian angel and to the Holy Archangels and the Heavenly Host. It is interesting how God uses members of the Church Triumphant to augment the work of the Angels, despite there being many more angels than Christians.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,091
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,682.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let's cut to the chase because I think you're misunderstanding my point. Jesus stated to Peter...

Matthew 16:18-19
New Catholic Bible
18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

I'm aware of that.
What I'm asking is, what did it mean in practice?

Yes, Peter gave a speech/sermon at Pentecost, was involved in the healing of a lame man and stood up to the Sanhedrin.
Yes, we are told he preached the Gospel, healed, raised the dead and was imprisoned. He did much in the early church. But there is no suggestion, even from Peter himself, that he was head of the church, head of all the other churches founded by Paul, the chief Apostle or anything else.

Peter claimed nothing for himself and constantly pointed people to God. He asked the crowd, "why are you looking at us as if, by our own power, we had made this man walk?", Acts of the Apostles 3:12.
When Cornelius knelt before him Peter said, "stand up, I am only a man myself" Acts of the Apostle 10:26.
People led others to Christ, baptised them, prayed for them to be filled with the Spirit and founded churches without Peter being there - no one said "ooooh, Peter has the keys of the kingdom, we'd better ask him."
When the church wanted a matter resolved they took it to the Apostles, not just to Peter.
When the church were choosing books to be included in the NT they chose those that were in line with the Apostle's teaching, not just Peter's.
The evidence from the NT is that Peter had no greater authority than any of the 12.

Peter was given the "keys to kingdom of heaven", with the authority to "bind and loose" in general. We know what that means... the authority to establish doctrine, morality, and practice.

And where do we see evidence of that?
We are not told that Peter founded churches.
We are not told that Paul consulted Peter about how the churches that he founded should be run.
We are not told that Peter appointed elders or bishops, led the church as it met in Mary's house, had to personally preside at the Lord's Supper or break bread for the other Apostles.
In Acts 2:42-47 we are given an insight into the life of the believers, "they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching", not just to Peter's.
Other Apostles, besides Peter, led non believers to the Lord, baptised them and prayed for them. When Saul was converted it was Ananias who restored his sight and Barnabas, not Peter, who led him to the other Apostles.

St. Peter was the first among equals, the leader of the team.

So where's the evidence for that?

While I believe the Church no doubt sought consensus, the buck ultimately stopped with St. Peter.

Where does it say that? Where are we told that Peter was the final human authority?
James was leader of the church in Jerusalem - even you agreed with that.
When Peter was imprisoned in Acts 12, the church met without him, it did not fall apart or become ineffective because he was not around. When Peter was released he said "tell this to the brothers and James."
We do not hear of Peter after Acts 15 - except for one brief incident was he argued with Paul and was called a hypocrite by him. A lot of the NT was written by Paul - he wrote to the churches that he had founded to encourage them, answer their questions and correct false teaching. Nowhere does Paul say, "I'll send Peter, the head of the church and chief Apostle, to discipline/teach/encourage you."

I'll lay the same challenge I've laid before others. Can you provide any evidence that anyone other than Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven

Can you give any evidence that it was only Peter who founded churches, made disciples, baptised, forgave sins, prayed for believers to receive the Spirit and had any influence over which people should hear about, or enter, the kingdom?

with the generalized authority to bind and loose?

Bind and loose what?
Peter didn't forgive sin, God did.
Peter may have driven out demons, healed, raised the dead - so did Paul.
Peter didn't decide who should hear the Gospel; we are not even told that he founded any churches. And Paul did not ask Peter for permission before he did so. Priscilla and Aquila did not ask Peter for permission before they taught Apollos.

The structure of the Catholic Church began in Matthew 16:17-18.

The church began at Pentecost - though clearly there were believers before then. Jesus told the disciples not to do anything until they had been filled with the Spirit. They were not to do, and could not do, anything in their own strength; Peter tried that, and ended up swearing, literally, that he did not know his Lord.
The church was founded by Christ, built on Christ and empowered by the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,091
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,682.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You need to go back and read my post again. When an Archangel bows before you and speaks saying, "Hail!...", it is as one greets royalty.

That doesn't mean, or prove, anything. And nowhere does it say that the angel bowed to Mary - that's your addition.

God called Abraham "the father of many". Was he? No; they had no children.
An angel addressed Gideon as a "Mighty warrior", Judges 6:12. Was he? No, he was a frightened man, hiding in a wine press, who needed lots of reassurance before he would do what God wanted him to do.
Jesus called Peter a rock. Was he? No, he was a man who crumbled when challenged and ended up denying his Lord.

It's pretty simple. If Mary isn't Gabriel's Queen... then Gabriel was woefully out of line,

No. God sees people as they will be; He values us highly because HE has created and made us.
He would be justified in addressing people as vile sinners, frightened teenagers, godless murderers, weak, impulsive humans - because that is what we are; he would be justified in not addressing us at all, because we were sinners and far from him.
In HIS Grace he addresses us by name and as the people he sees us to be - valued, strong etc.

Actually, Mary intercedes for those at the Wedding in Cana by imploring that Christ act,

That's an interpretation.
Mary told Jesus they had no more wine, and Jesus answered, "why do you involve me, my time has not yet come/" He did not say, "the queen of heaven has asked me to turn this water into wine; I had better do so."

I should also mention something many Protestants ignore. The NT Gospels didn't just fall out of Heaven into the lap of the writers. Nor were they communicated in vision.

I think we know that.

For example, the Annunciation. How did Luke know those details? Well, who was there to communicate them to him? St. Mary.

Mary was one of the sources Luke used for his Gospel, absolutely.

In fact, if you investigate every portion of the Gospel narrative, it is quite probable that the Gospel writers received nearly a 3rd to half of their Gospels from St. Mary herself. For she was the one typically present or was most likely to have been present in most cases.

Possibly - and that means, what?

The pagan queen of heaven isn't the Gebirah (גְּבִירָה) of Ancient Israel. Remember, it was dishonorable for a king NOT to elevate His Mother to be Queen.

Jesus was not an earthly king who followed earthly practices.

Did Jesus, the King of Kings, seated upon the throne of His ancestor David, dishonor His mother???

Jesus was not seated on the throne of his abncestor David when he was walking round Israel ministering.
Of course he honoured his mother - but not by crowing her as queen, either as queen of earth or heaven.

To acknowledge Mary's status as Queen of Heaven, Queen of Saints, is to affirm Christ's Kingship.

Not at all.
Jesus is King. He is eternal, he is the Word - is God and was God, John 1:1. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20. He is the One before whom every knee will bow, Philippians 2:10. He is the Alpha and Omega, the King of King and Lord of Lords.
This is all true because Scripture says so.
I affirm Jesus as king, as Scripture does.
I do not affirm Mary as queen of heaven, because Scripture doesn't - not even the couple of verses which you have found that, apparently, teach this.

To deny it is to deny Christ's Kingship. It's an ancient Jewish custom that Protestants are woefully ignorant of.

We don't keep ancient Jewish customs.

Not to mention, St. Mary's assumption and coronation is understood as being reflected in Revelation 12

Understood by Catholics, maybe.

Mary was never addressed, or treated, as the queen of heaven - by Jesus or any of the early church. Scripture does not use the words "Mary is queen of heaven", that doctrine has been put together by other verses which, apparently, show what you say they show.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,846
8,379
50
The Wild West
✟778,957.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You forgot a couple:

"There are 66 books in the Bible" and
"The Bible alone"

Now, don't get me wrong, as a Lutheran I subscribe to principle of Sola Scriptura; but the difference between Sola Scriptura and what you are advocating is that you are advocating for Nuda Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is not, itself, in the Scriptures. Because it's not a biblical teaching, it's a methodology that also accepts the historic standards of the Christian faith, e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds and the received and historic teaching of the Christian Church. What Sola Scriptura accomplishes is it provides us with a final court of appeal: That which is contrary to Scripture is unacceptable, and Scripture is the chief rule of faith. Or what we call in Lutheranism the Norma Normans, Latin for "The Norm that norms" or "the Unnormed norm": Scripture sets the norm and is not ruled by anything else (in contrast to the Creeds, Confessions, and historic Christian statements of faith which are Norma Normata, the norms which are ruled over by Scripture. Ergo, Scripture is authoritative because it is divinely inspired, the Creeds are authoritative because they faithfully affirm what Scripture has already said.

Using your Nuda Scriptura methodology, how do you even get to the place where you can confess Scripture is holy and divinely inspired? The collection of books that we call the Bible didn't fall out of the sky, there's no divinely inspired appendix that says, "These books and no others". Instead the Bible is the result of the long tradition of Christians receiving and accepting these books, and not others. Which is also why there continues to be disagreements over some books, namely the Deuterocanonicals.

Example: Why accept Esther as Scripture but not 1 Maccabees?

I have Bibles that have 1 Maccabees in them. Is this wrong, why or why not?

-CryptoLutheran

One thing I have realized is that because of the error of Nuda Scriptura, the disparity between the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox/Assyrian concept of Holy Tradition with Scripture as the center of that Tradition and the Lutheran concept of Sola Scriptura, and the Anglican trilateral of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, is greatly overblown. There is more or a distinction between the mofels of these liturgical churches and the somewhat external Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, which seems to comment on and interpret Scripture from without, as opposed to the Lutheran or Orthodox model where Scripture is centralized, but I suspect this is just a superficial appearance related to traditional Roman culture and scrupulous diligence of the sort one associates with Cicero or the great Roman civil engineers, and the Roman Catholic Church has fixed most of the problems that caused Luther to leave, a process which began with the Counter Reformation which was activated by Luther.

So really, there are only three categories of churches today, as I see it: liberal mainline churches, which have abandoned traditional Christian moral theology and which are a great tragedy for the damage they are doing, although confessing movements within some of the churches are encouraging (even the United Church of Christ has one, Faithful and Welcoming), traditional denominational churches that are preserving their theological heritage and worship traditions, which are somtimes liturgical, such as in the case of the Eastern Orthodox, LCMS or Continuing Anglicans, and sometimes not, such is in the case of Quakers, Primitive Baptists, Plymouth Brethren and other groups which have distinctive and highly extemporaneous services. There is also a subset of this group which is faithful to traditional doctrine but does a poor job with liturgics or worship services.

I visited on a few occasions St. Jude’s Roman Catholic Church in Westlake Village, which has a Postmodern architectural design that I find soothing, with placement of a chapel for Eucharistic adoration that can double as a cry room, gorgeous confessionals, a fountain/waterfall element intended to be usable as a font for baptisms, an elegant altar / apse, and an expensive hybrid organ, which the nearby Westminster Presbyterian Church also has (these are overpriced digital organs / synthesizers which conceal their main speaker in an array of pipes on which some notes in some stops are played); I initially visited these two churches during a Bach Walk and was distressed to see a Communion Table being casually used for stacking papers and literature for the laity in the hallway (it was identical to the communion table or altar in the sanctuary, both of them being of the simple wooden design with “THIS DO YE IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME” carved in.

St. Jude in comparison, with its superior stained glass windows and greater feeling of reverence, seemed like paradise, even when the hybrid organ there malfunctioned and had a stuck note, which the representative of the manufacturer of these organs, which had arranged the event, presumably in the hopes of selling more, had to clear, by rebooting what I think was a Windows XP Embedded Edition digital controller. The organist was noted German organist Dr. Christoph Bull, who is in charge of the Great Organs at First Congregational Church in Los Angeles, which are collectively the largest church organs in the world (the Wannamaker Organ in Philadelphia is larger than the individual organs, however, it is an organ in a department store built for entertainment and features some stops you would never see or need in an ecclesiastical organ). However, all of the money St. Jude spent on their hybrid digital pipe organ that requires rebooting seems to be for naught, based on their typical liturgies, as can be seen from this mass on Easter Sunday (all three livestreamed masses were like this, and it only goes downhill from there):


It is a pity there aren’t more bishops like that of Pere Marquette who have resolved to enforce the motu proprio of Pope Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini, and use Gregorian Chant or traditional church music composers like Palestrina as prescribed.

Indeed our friend @MarkRohfrietsch contributes substantially to the liturgical beauty of his Lutheran parish, which I would argue is compliant with the precepts of Tra le sollecitudini in a way which, sadly, many Catholic churches aren’t.

I am also really frustrated I can’t find any local Catholic or traditional Anglican churches celebrating the Feast of the Ascension today, although most of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches are celebrating it next week. As far as I can tell even the Assyrians, who use the Gregorian Calendar, do not have it on the schedule. I probably should have put it on mine, but I figured attendance would be low, and it would be better to transfer it to Sunday and visit someone else’s service for a change.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,382
Dallas
✟1,091,936.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nothing good ever comes of atrocity-swapping, or of opening up old wounds. STM far better to build one another up, than tear each other down (Whatever its faults, which are not absent, I think the modern Ecumenical Movement is a great improvement over the old days in which Christians spent time ripping each other to shreds.)

I take no pleasure in pointing them out my friend which is why I did refrain from actually naming them but they do give evidence to what took place at that time which I think is important on that particular subject we were discussing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jamiec
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,382
Dallas
✟1,091,936.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Considering when Constantine created a state church out of tribal Christianity, it was the greek east, not latin west that was predominant as the west had lost the civil war where Rome was the loser in the Roman empire. Even popes were not restricted to Rome.

Constantine didn’t “create a state church” he just made Christianity legal by introducing the Edict of Milan. It was Theodocius who made Christianity the official religion of Rome.
 
Upvote 0

Bruce Leiter

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love
Jun 16, 2018
782
551
82
West Michigan
Visit site
✟64,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My goal is not so much to simply teach Scripture. I also intend to correct much of the false teaching that is prevalent in almost every church building. It is so easy to tell a lie, twist Scripture, 2 Pet 3:16, or teach something out of context but it often takes much time and effort to debunk a lie. But all throughout Scripture many of the key figures also had to correct false teaching. In order for believers to live righteously, according to what Scripture teaches, they have to know what is presented in Scripture, not live their lives based on what preachers say.
I won't mention names because if you like a preacher I was to name, you would ignore or discount what I say. I will just show and give examples of false teaching. This way allows you to recognize when you are hearing a lie or being exposed to false teaching.
The three main reasons for the Reformation were to denounce the unbiblical practices of the Catholic Church, to protest all of the unbiblical things that the Catholic Church was teaching, and to give the common people the ability and right to read Scripture in their native language. For the previous 1000 or so years, otherwise known as the dark ages, the Catholic Church was dominant in matters concerning the bible, faith, serving God, etc. The Catholic Bibles were all in Latin and things read from the bible were read in Latin. The problem was that only the Catholic Clergy and a small number of educated men could read and write Latin. Common people didn't understand Latin. The Catholic Church had outlawed any other translation of the Bible in another language. It was a crime for a commoner to own a Bible. For a period of time, it was the death penalty for an unauthorized person to be in the possession of a bible. Many of the Reformers started off in the Catholic Church and they knew the Catholic Church was misrepresenting Scripture and they wanted the practice to stop. Thus, one of their main themes was "Sola Scriptura," which means, Scripture Alone! One of the main tenets of the Catholic Church, then and now, is that the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church are superior to Scripture and when a Catholic Church's teaching contradicts Scripture, the teaching of the Catholic church supersedes Scripture. One of the Catholic Church's favorite sayings is, " The Church can stand without the Bible, the Bible cannot stand without the Church."
Since Scripture is God's word to believers, when you are going to teach Scripture, you need to stick with what is in Scripture. When you claim to teach from Scripture, you need to show in Scripture, book, chapter, and verse, where Scripture says such and such. God gave clear command to not add or take away from His word:
Deut 4:2, 12:32
Pro 30:5-6
Rev 22:18-19.
Notice in Proverbs, Scripture states if you add to God's word, you are a liar. This ungodly practice, men adding to or taking away from Scripture has been going on since Old Testament times. This study focuses on adding to God's word, teaching things that sound biblical, but are not found anywhere in Scripture. All of the things taught, but not found in Scripture fall under the category of what is called the "traditions of men." Scripture warns against following the traditions of men or the ignorant things ungodly men say:
Isa 29:13
Mat 15:1-3, 6-9
Mk 7:1-13
Col 2:8
1Tim 6:20
1Pet 1:18

I am now going to list many of the statements made from pulpits and believed by those in the pews that are not found anywhere in Scripture, not found in any translation or version of the bible nor in any Greek manuscript. Most of you will recognize some of these sayings, having heard your own preachers proclaim them. You can search, but you won't be able to locate them.

People have a hole in their hearts or a God-shaped hole in their hearts.
You have a void in your life.
You have a vacuum in your life.
Share the love of God/Jesus.
Share your faith.
Pass your faith on to your children.
Leave a spiritual heritage, legacy
Be the hands and feet of Jesus.
Accept Christ.
Invite Jesus into your heart, life.
Make Jesus your personal Lord and Savior.
Admit you are a sinner.
Give God/Jesus/Holy Spirit control of your life.
Surrender to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
You are God's masterpiece.
Lift up the name of Jesus.
Plead the blood.
There is power in the blood.
The work of the cross.
Sinners' prayer.
Praying for another or the lost to "get saved."
Pray for the lost.
Meek means "strength under control.'
Love the unlovable.
Broken people, world.
Those who God uses.
Make yourself available to God.
Let God use you.
Give God permission to work in you, through you.
God is your biggest fan.
God hurts when you hurt.
God won't waste your pain.
Don't put God in a box.
God wants to...
God allows...
Deathbed confession.
Church planting.
Music minister.
Music ministry.
Praise/worship leader.
Praise and worship band.
Radical faith.
Random acts of kindness
Practice the presence of God.
How big is your God?
God is in control.
Affect/change society, culture or the world.
Wilderness period.
Mountaintop/valley experience.
The storms in your life.
The giants in your life.
God will meet you where you are at.
Jesus will change your life.
Prayer changes things.
Prayer walk.
Prayer warrior.
Prayer wall.
Prayer allows God to work in your life.
God will use the adversity in your life.
Sold out to God/Jesus.
Evangelical
Evangelicalism.
Ask Jesus to be the Lord of your life.
Leading people to Christ.
The heart of God/Jesus.
Prayer room.
God has a wonderful plan for your life.
You're going to do great things.
God is going to use you in a mighty way.
There is a great move of God coming.
Stretch your faith.
Standing on the word, promises of God.
Where God guides, God provides.
The God of the second chance.
God loves you so much.
Cheap grace
God is so into you.
Fall in love with God/Jesus.
Fall in love with Jesus.
Giving money allows God to work.
Giving money is a form of worship.
Angels singing.
Let God...
Giving money allows God to work
Giving money shows you aren't greedy.
Believers today are under the tithe.
Jesus is the answer.
An attitude of gratitude.
Stinking thinking.
Anointed singing, preaching.
I see the anointing on so and so.
Powerful preaching, sermon.
Your identity in Christ.
Christian sexuality, masculinity.
Christians living in shame, fear, and guilt.
Jesus massaged your heart.
Blessed means happy.
Discover God's will/plan for your life.
How to discover your spiritual gift.
Treasure in heaven is money you sent ahead.
All in.
Resonate.
Different ministries to reach different groups.
Youth, children's ministry.
Sunday school
Musical groups travel around to perform.
Christian singers or musicians.
Transparency.
Divine appointment.
Senior, lead pastor.
Ushers.
Greeters.
Parking ministry.
Who God created you to be.
Devotionals.
We are here to worship God and enjoy Him forever.
Self-esteem.
Image bearers.
Church planting.
Minister of dance, dancing.
Personal relationship.
Easter.
Christmas.
Lent.
Advent.
Accept God's love.
Christian statesman, thinkers.
Changed lives.
God will take away your desires to sin.
All that God has for you.
Prayer journal.
Spread, advance the kingdom.
God loves you so much.
Reading something from the bible and asking, 'How does this apply to me?"
God gave His all.
You can't outgive God.
God is winsome.
Altar call.
With every head bowed and eyes closed.
Somebody saying to another, "You have something I want."
Seed means money.
"I'm believing God for..."
Life coach.
God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you there.
Change agents.
Making an investment into the kingdom.
Help us reach the world.
I'd like to invite you to accept Christ.
God asks, "Why should I let you into heaven, what did you do with Jesus, what did you do with the money, and gifts I gave you?
Jesus invaded Earth.
Jesus was a revolutionary.
A preacher saying, "I think or I believe.'
God adores you.
Trust in Jesus for your salvation.
Jesus came with a message of love.
The bible is God's love letter to us.
The lover of my soul.
The enemy of my soul.
Satan hates believers.
Revivalists.
Psalmist.
This year is going to be the best year of your life.
Are you teachable?
Have you submitted your will to God?
Faith in your faith.
Baby Jesus.
Whomsoever may come.
How big is your faith?
God pursues people.
God is the hound from heaven.
Gifted.
Spiritual failure.
God has a special love for children.
Opening yourself for possession.
Influenced by demons.
Satan whispers in your ear or puts thoughts into your mind.
Satan talks to you.
Lordship.
Applauding the preacher.
The congregation buys gifts for the preacher and his wife.
Long, drawn-out prayers.
Testimonies.
God told me...
Personal stories from the preacher.
Caught, not taught.
Tell people how much God loves them.
Unchurched.
Step into your destiny.
Preachers giving advice on mental health issues.
Hearing God.
Till the whole world hears.
The wooing of the Holy Spirit.
"I receive that."
Speaking into people's lives.
Surrender your life and possessions to God.
Give God your pain.
Forgive God.
Spiritual soul mate.
Ask God who you should marry.
Paul was a terrorist.
Jesus came to change the world.
God knows your potential.
The last thing to get saved is a person's wallet.
Prayer posture.
Go tell people about me and how they can come to know me.
Claiming territory for God.
Asking God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to show up in a church service.
Church service.

I could add more. The point is if you hear any of these statements made, I would ask your preacher to show you where Scripture teaches this. All preachers are accountable for what they say. If something isn't found in Scripture, then it isn't biblical and should not be taught, period! If it isn't in Scripture, it is a lie, it is false teaching!
I am aware that some will disagree with me that these statements are not biblical. And that is okay with me. I'm not here to have people "believe" me or try to persuade people to believe what I say. The only important thing is that Scripture is believed. If a statement is not found in Scripture, then it isn't Scripture. If you think I am wrong and seek to prove me wrong, you must use Scripture and Scripture alone to show any error. Otherwise, it is just your personal opinion or belief, which doesn't mean anything to me.

All I have to say is that just because a phrase isn't found in the Bible doesn't mean that the teaching it represents isn't in Scripture. I don't agree with some of those phrases as scriptural either, but others are biblical as the teaching is concerned. If you would narrow those phrases down to a few, we could discuss them, but you present too many of them for me to discuss with you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jamiec
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My goal is not so much to simply teach Scripture. I also intend to correct much of the false teaching that is prevalent in almost every church building. It is so easy to tell a lie, twist Scripture, 2 Pet 3:16, or teach something out of context but it often takes much time and effort to debunk a lie. But all throughout Scripture many of the key figures also had to correct false teaching. In order for believers to live righteously, according to what Scripture teaches, they have to know what is presented in Scripture, not live their lives based on what preachers say.
I won't mention names because if you like a preacher I was to name, you would ignore or discount what I say. I will just show and give examples of false teaching. This way allows you to recognize when you are hearing a lie or being exposed to false teaching.
The three main reasons for the Reformation were to denounce the unbiblical practices of the Catholic Church, to protest all of the unbiblical things that the Catholic Church was teaching, and to give the common people the ability and right to read Scripture in their native language. For the previous 1000 or so years, otherwise known as the dark ages, the Catholic Church was dominant in matters concerning the bible, faith, serving God, etc. The Catholic Bibles were all in Latin and things read from the bible were read in Latin. The problem was that only the Catholic Clergy and a small number of educated men could read and write Latin. Common people didn't understand Latin. The Catholic Church had outlawed any other translation of the Bible in another language. It was a crime for a commoner to own a Bible. For a period of time, it was the death penalty for an unauthorized person to be in the possession of a bible. Many of the Reformers started off in the Catholic Church and they knew the Catholic Church was misrepresenting Scripture and they wanted the practice to stop. Thus, one of their main themes was "Sola Scriptura," which means, Scripture Alone! One of the main tenets of the Catholic Church, then and now, is that the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church are superior to Scripture and when a Catholic Church's teaching contradicts Scripture, the teaching of the Catholic church supersedes Scripture. One of the Catholic Church's favorite sayings is, " The Church can stand without the Bible, the Bible cannot stand without the Church."
Since Scripture is God's word to believers, when you are going to teach Scripture, you need to stick with what is in Scripture. When you claim to teach from Scripture, you need to show in Scripture, book, chapter, and verse, where Scripture says such and such. God gave clear command to not add or take away from His word:
Deut 4:2, 12:32
Pro 30:5-6
Rev 22:18-19.
Notice in Proverbs, Scripture states if you add to God's word, you are a liar. This ungodly practice, men adding to or taking away from Scripture has been going on since Old Testament times. This study focuses on adding to God's word, teaching things that sound biblical, but are not found anywhere in Scripture. All of the things taught, but not found in Scripture fall under the category of what is called the "traditions of men." Scripture warns against following the traditions of men or the ignorant things ungodly men say:
Isa 29:13
Mat 15:1-3, 6-9
Mk 7:1-13
Col 2:8
1Tim 6:20
1Pet 1:18

I am now going to list many of the statements made from pulpits and believed by those in the pews that are not found anywhere in Scripture, not found in any translation or version of the bible nor in any Greek manuscript. Most of you will recognize some of these sayings, having heard your own preachers proclaim them. You can search, but you won't be able to locate them.
People have a hole in their hearts or a God-shaped hole in their hearts.
You have a void in your life.
You have a vacuum in your life.
Share the love of God/Jesus.
Share your faith.
Pass your faith on to your children.
Leave a spiritual heritage, legacy
Be the hands and feet of Jesus.
Accept Christ.
Invite Jesus into your heart, life.
Make Jesus your personal Lord and Savior.
Admit you are a sinner.
Give God/Jesus/Holy Spirit control of your life.
Surrender to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
You are God's masterpiece.
Lift up the name of Jesus.
Plead the blood.
There is power in the blood.
The work of the cross.
Sinners' prayer.
Praying for another or the lost to "get saved."
Pray for the lost.
Meek means "strength under control.'
Love the unlovable.
Broken people, world.
Those who God uses.
Make yourself available to God.
Let God use you.
Give God permission to work in you, through you.
God is your biggest fan.
God hurts when you hurt.
God won't waste your pain.
Don't put God in a box.
God wants to...
God allows...
Deathbed confession.
Church planting.
Music minister.
Music ministry.
Praise/worship leader.
Praise and worship band.
Radical faith.
Random acts of kindness
Practice the presence of God.
How big is your God?
God is in control.
Affect/change society, culture or the world.
Wilderness period.
Mountaintop/valley experience.
The storms in your life.
The giants in your life.
God will meet you where you are at.
Jesus will change your life.
Prayer changes things.
Prayer walk.
Prayer warrior.
Prayer wall.
Prayer allows God to work in your life.
God will use the adversity in your life.
Sold out to God/Jesus.
Evangelical
Evangelicalism.
Ask Jesus to be the Lord of your life.
Leading people to Christ.
The heart of God/Jesus.
Prayer room.
God has a wonderful plan for your life.
You're going to do great things.
God is going to use you in a mighty way.
There is a great move of God coming.
Stretch your faith.
Standing on the word, promises of God.
Where God guides, God provides.
The God of the second chance.
God loves you so much.
Cheap grace
God is so into you.
Fall in love with God/Jesus.
Fall in love with Jesus.
Giving money allows God to work.
Giving money is a form of worship.
Angels singing.
Let God...
Giving money allows God to work
Giving money shows you aren't greedy.
Believers today are under the tithe.
Jesus is the answer.
An attitude of gratitude.
Stinking thinking.
Anointed singing, preaching.
I see the anointing on so and so.
Powerful preaching, sermon.
Your identity in Christ.
Christian sexuality, masculinity.
Christians living in shame, fear, and guilt.
Jesus massaged your heart.
Blessed means happy.
Discover God's will/plan for your life.
How to discover your spiritual gift.
Treasure in heaven is money you sent ahead.
All in.
Resonate.
Different ministries to reach different groups.
Youth, children's ministry.
Sunday school
Musical groups travel around to perform.
Christian singers or musicians.
Transparency.
Divine appointment.
Senior, lead pastor.
Ushers.
Greeters.
Parking ministry.
Who God created you to be.
Devotionals.
We are here to worship God and enjoy Him forever.
Self-esteem.
Image bearers.
Church planting.
Minister of dance, dancing.
Personal relationship.
Easter.
Christmas.
Lent.
Advent.
Accept God's love.
Christian statesman, thinkers.
Changed lives.
God will take away your desires to sin.
All that God has for you.
Prayer journal.
Spread, advance the kingdom.
God loves you so much.
Reading something from the bible and asking, 'How does this apply to me?"
God gave His all.
You can't outgive God.
God is winsome.
Altar call.
With every head bowed and eyes closed.
Somebody saying to another, "You have something I want."
Seed means money.
"I'm believing God for..."
Life coach.
God loves you the way you are, but He loves you too much to leave you there.
Change agents.
Making an investment into the kingdom.
Help us reach the world.
I'd like to invite you to accept Christ.
God asks, "Why should I let you into heaven, what did you do with Jesus, what did you do with the money, and gifts I gave you?
Jesus invaded Earth.
Jesus was a revolutionary.
A preacher saying, "I think or I believe.'
God adores you.
Trust in Jesus for your salvation.
Jesus came with a message of love.
The bible is God's love letter to us.
The lover of my soul.
The enemy of my soul.
Satan hates believers.
Revivalists.
Psalmist.
This year is going to be the best year of your life.
Are you teachable?
Have you submitted your will to God?
Faith in your faith.
Baby Jesus.
Whomsoever may come.
How big is your faith?
God pursues people.
God is the hound from heaven.
Gifted.
Spiritual failure.
God has a special love for children.
Opening yourself for possession.
Influenced by demons.
Satan whispers in your ear or puts thoughts into your mind.
Satan talks to you.
Lordship.
Applauding the preacher.
The congregation buys gifts for the preacher and his wife.
Long, drawn-out prayers.
Testimonies.
God told me...
Personal stories from the preacher.
Caught, not taught.
Tell people how much God loves them.
Unchurched.
Step into your destiny.
Preachers giving advice on mental health issues.
Hearing God.
Till the whole world hears.
The wooing of the Holy Spirit.
"I receive that."
Speaking into people's lives.
Surrender your life and possessions to God.
Give God your pain.
Forgive God.
Spiritual soul mate.
Ask God who you should marry.
Paul was a terrorist.
Jesus came to change the world.
God knows your potential.
The last thing to get saved is a person's wallet.
Prayer posture.
Go tell people about me and how they can come to know me.
Claiming territory for God.
Asking God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to show up in a church service.
Church service.

I could add more. The point is if you hear any of these statements made, I would ask your preacher to show you where Scripture teaches this. All preachers are accountable for what they say. If something isn't found in Scripture, then it isn't biblical and should not be taught, period! If it isn't in Scripture, it is a lie, it is false teaching!
I am aware that some will disagree with me that these statements are not biblical. And that is okay with me. I'm not here to have people "believe" me or try to persuade people to believe what I say. The only important thing is that Scripture is believed. If a statement is not found in Scripture, then it isn't Scripture. If you think I am wrong and seek to prove me wrong, you must use Scripture and Scripture alone to show any error. Otherwise, it is just your personal opinion or belief, which doesn't mean anything to me.
If your sole purpose here is to point fingers and criticize others. Congratulations, you are doing a good job. Too bad that is not the work of a Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I'm aware of that.
What I'm asking is, what did it mean in practice?

As I mentioned, the authority to "bind and loose" is described well in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It was possessed by the Jewish authorities. They could bind and loose as it related to Jewish practice, interpretation, and morality. For Jesus to say this to Peter is to give Peter that authority over this new body He was forming called the Church. If Peter wasn't to have any special authority, why emphasize giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" and that Peter had the authority to "bind and loose"??? The very text demands Peter's authority over the Apostles, and the Church itself.

And while you gloss over the impact of Acts 15, we will see that the meeting was in loud debate until Peter addresses the meeting. It took Peter speaking to bring silence and order. If Peter hadn't spoken, the debate would have continued, and Paul and Silas would definitely not have been given the floor to bear witness to Peter's perspective on the matter. And James wouldn't have been able to second it and recommend writing the ecumenical letter to the entire body of Christ. The issue would remain unresolved until this very day had Peter not spoken and called the council to order. This one example is truly all that is needed Scripturally to show an example of Peter's ecclesiastical authority.

Now, as a Catholic, I'm not limited to just Scripture. I also have Sacred Tradition, the Councils, and the Magisterium. These are strongly influenced by the writings of the Church Fathers. Regarding Peter's authority in the early Church, the common understanding of the first FIVE HUNDRED YEARS of the life of the Church is as follows...

Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“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]).

Origen
“If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . 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 that also which 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]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

John Chrysostom
“Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John, 88.1).

Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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 anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).​

And there are countless other references that can be called upon to illustrate the prevailing interpretation of Peter's authority within the first 1,000 years of the Church, prior to the Great Schism. Now, I understand that in your faith, these authorities are not regarded. But may faith IS this old, and these are OUR Church Fathers. Even if you reject their ecclesiastical authority... you have to admit that their position reflect the prevailing understanding of Peter's role in the Church for the first 500 years of Christianity. So... though you may deliberately choose to disagree to affirm your later tradition... you can't deny that this Catholic position is far older and more historic.

Matthew 16:18-19
New Catholic Bible
18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​


jesus-gives-peter-keys.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
31,091
10,069
NW England
✟1,303,682.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I mentioned, the authority to "bind and loose" is described well in the Jewish Encyclopedia. It was possessed by the Jewish authorities. They could bind and loose as it related to Jewish practice, interpretation, and morality. For Jesus to say this to Peter is to give Peter that authority over this new body He was forming called the Church. If Peter wasn't to have any special authority, why emphasize giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" and that Peter had the authority to "bind and loose"???

And as I asked; what did this mean in practice?

As I read through Acts, I don't see Peter as head of the church. He was prominent in it for a while, yes, but not head of it.
No one said, "well Peter has the keys of the kingdom, we'd better ask him", or "Peter has more authority than anyone, we need to ask him before we pray for this person/celebrate the Lord's Supper/start a new congregation." In Acts 13 it was the Holy Spirit who said "set aside Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them", not Peter who said "I am going to ordain you to this ministry."

I don't see Peter "binding and loosing", except maybe when he healed or drove out demons. But that was God working through Peter - and he did the same for Saul.
We don't hear anything of Peter after Acts 15 - except for when he had an argument with Paul and was called a hypocrite. You would have thought that if he knew he was head of the church he would have written letters and instructions to its members; how to appoint bishops, when and how to baptise, how to decide when a person had a gift or calling, do not celebrate the Lord's supper if I'm not there, etc etc. Where is it?
Why did he not write more? Why did the church allow Paul did do so much, if Peter had the most authority? Why did the man who had "the keys of the Kingdom", whatever that means, not have any say in who was allowed to become born again and therefore enter the Kingdom?

You can post quotes from 1,000 sources and all the pictures you like and write words in big, bold font in case I can't see them; I'm asking "where, in the book of Acts and in fact the NT, do we see Peter as having the ultimate authority over all the churches?"
Where does it say, "only people who were ordained by Peter, or someone who was themselves ordained by Peter, are 'valid' Priests/Ministers?"
 
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
That doesn't mean, or prove, anything. And nowhere does it say that the angel bowed to Mary - that's your addition.

It is actually customary to take a bow when hailing royalty. This is why so much of the most ancient art depicting the Annunciation depicts Gabriel taking a bow before Mary. It was customary to bend the knee when speaking such a greeting, especially if the one hailed is seated. It's to elevate them, you never speak it while standing higher than they are. Remember... I'm reading this through the lens of ancient customs the reader would have recognized instantly. You're ignoring such things and running with an interpretation that is no older than the 1500's.

8057-blagovehhenie-presvjatoj-bogoroditsy.jpg



God called Abraham "the father of many". Was he? No; they had no children.
An angel addressed Gideon as a "Mighty warrior", Judges 6:12. Was he? No, he was a frightened man, hiding in a wine press, who needed lots of reassurance before he would do what God wanted him to do.
Jesus called Peter a rock. Was he? No, he was a man who crumbled when challenged and ended up denying his Lord.

No. God sees people as they will be; He values us highly because HE has created and made us.
He would be justified in addressing people as vile sinners, frightened teenagers, godless murderers, weak, impulsive humans - because that is what we are; he would be justified in not addressing us at all, because we were sinners and far from him.
In HIS Grace he addresses us by name and as the people he sees us to be - valued, strong etc.

You're making my point. Gabriel would see her as the Holy Gebirah (Queen Mother) on account of what she was chosen to do, which was to give birth to the King of Kings. Again, you have to read this like an ancient Jew living in 1st Century Palestine. This was VERY VERY big. In fact, the mere thought of a king being born initiated Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents which was the reason why the Holy Family fled to Egypt. The story is scandalously seditious. Even a Roman reader knowledgeable of Jewish custom would read this and realize Gabriel was hailing Mary as Queen, and informing her she was giving birth to a new and enduring King.

That's an interpretation.
Mary told Jesus they had no more wine, and Jesus answered, "why do you involve me, my time has not yet come/" He did not say, "the queen of heaven has asked me to turn this water into wine; I had better do so."

I think you're missing the point again. Jesus tells Mary it isn't His time. However, Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says... and leaves. lol Now, every Jewish family knows that that means! LOL Mother has spoken. LOL And the next thing we see is Jesus instructing them to go and fetch water, and here He works His first miracle of turning water into wine. This illustrates the loving relationship Jesus has with His Mother, Mary. Though it wasn't His time, the time He determined, her request laid before Him provoked Him to act... even though it wasn't a part of His own determined timeline. This is LOVE. This highlights a loving Son who will not allow His Mother's request to go unmet. This illustrates a relationship... not necessarily a principle. I know in Protestantism, things are always tied to principles, like spiritual laws of physics or something. Here we see the depth of love and relationship between Jesus and His Mother.

For the ancient Christians... we, they didn't believe this relationship ended upon Christ's ministry, His death, or His ascension. Nor did they believe this relationship ended upon Mary's own assumption into Heaven. In fact, based on the Church Fathers and early Christian writings, including etchings and iconography found in first and second century catacombs, early Christians believed this relationship deepened... leading not only to Mary's coronation as implied in Revelation 12, but also affirming the value of Mary's intercession for the Church. I understand you don't embrace this understanding. My point is... this understanding is a valid historical Christian understanding dating back to the earliest days of the Church.

Mary was one of the sources Luke used for his Gospel, absolutely.

Possibly - and that means, what?

This means that while many argue we don't read much about Mary's involvement in the early Church... the very texts they are reading were compiled with perhaps more assistance from Mary than any other figure. In fact, our theology takes into account the story behind the stories, not just the stories themselves. Sometimes, what isn't written is just as important as what was written.

Jesus was not an earthly king who followed earthly practices.

The very notion of a "king" is an earthly practice. Again, you have to read the text through the lens of an ancient reader. These things jump out all over the place when you do. The Protestant method of interpretation is divorced from all historic and cultural realities that would have been self-evident to the ancient reader. Why? Because Protestantism's view is 1500 years after the fact. This more ancient understanding prevailed for 1,500 years until Reformers broke away from it in order to establish their own authority outside of the Church under the umbrella's of their earthly kings who assumed full authority over their Protestant churches. Acknowledging all these things as applying only to Christ... one is actually protected from falling under human civil authority.

Jesus was not seated on the throne of his abncestor David when he was walking round Israel ministering.
Of course he honoured his mother - but not by crowing her as queen, either as queen of earth or heaven.

In Revelation 12 we read...

"1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was with child and about to give birth, crying aloud in the anguish of her labor.
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems crowning his heads. 4 His tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child who is destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was taken up directly to God and to his throne." (Revelation 12:1-5, New Catholic Bible)​

Symbols in the Revelation often have expansive realities. Here we clearly see a woman who gives birth to Christ. Therefore, we cannot deny that this symbol is St. Mary the Mother of God. Now, she also serves as a fitting example of Zion, and even the Church according to some. But St. Mary is clearly the chosen symbol embodying all of these things. And not only is she depicted here as giving birth to the Messiah under Herod's threat to kill the Christ Child (the desire of the dragon to devour her child), she's... crowned. The crown has 12 stars. This two has a double meaning. There were 12 tribes of Israel and 12 Apostles. And so, to be crowned with 12 stars is to be crowned with royal authority over God's covenant people as a whole. Since all authority comes from God, this crown was clearly given to her by God Himself (Father, Son, and Spirit). And so this text clearly presents Mary coronated as Gebirah, or Queen Mother, of Heaven. In addition, let's look at the last few verses of this chapter...

Revelation 12:17
New Catholic Bible
17 Then the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war on the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.​

So here we read that Satan becomes enraged at the woman, Mary, and intensifies a war on "...the rest of her offspring, who keep God's Commandments and bear witness to Jesus." This is VERY powerful. Notice those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Christ are regarded as... "her offspring". In other words, she is the Mother of the Church. She is your mother, my mother, our mother. We are her offspring. This is huge. Ponder it quietly and reflect on the text. She's our Mother. This is also a reference going back to the protoevangelium in Genesis where God speaks to Satan saying...

Genesis 3:15
New Catholic Bible
"15 I will establish hostility
between you and the woman,
between your line and her line.
Her offspring will crush your head
and you will bruise his heel.”


We are her offspring, her line. Christ is her offspring, who crushed Satan. She is our Mother.

Not at all.
Jesus is King. He is eternal, he is the Word - is God and was God, John 1:1. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20. He is the One before whom every knee will bow, Philippians 2:10. He is the Alpha and Omega, the King of King and Lord of Lords.
This is all true because Scripture says so.
I affirm Jesus as king, as Scripture does.
I do not affirm Mary as queen of heaven, because Scripture doesn't - not even the couple of verses which you have found that, apparently, teach this.

Actually, if you examine the points made above... Scripture does affirm Mary's Queenship as it relates to Christ's Kingship. This is the oldest interpretation of the text and was embraced by the Fathers of the Church and every Christian prior to the Reformation. Again, that's 1,500 years of Christian history.

We don't keep ancient Jewish customs.

You're right, we don't keep Jewish customs. However, we are informed by them. Through the Jewish mind we can reconstruct the lens whereby the original readers understood the Scriptures.

Understood by Catholics, maybe.

Mary was never addressed, or treated, as the queen of heaven - by Jesus or any of the early church. Scripture does not use the words "Mary is queen of heaven", that doctrine has been put together by other verses which, apparently, show what you say they show.

As stated above, the text demands it. The woman in Revelation 12 clearly gives birth to Christ, and so she is Mary. And she is crowned, therefore, she was coronated. This is the foundation of the symbol present, regardless of any expansive meaning. We can't deny Mary is seen giving birth to the Christ child as Satan seeks to destroy the child (Herod's slaughter of the Innocents). We can't deny she's crowned with 12 stars denoting her authority over God's covenant people.

As stated above the earlier 1st and 2nd Century Christians left iconography and writings on stone where they gathered to break bread in secret, including the Catacombs. There are etchings in stone and symbols depicting St. Mary calling her "Theotokos". There are prayers and petitions etched on walls near her iconography. Her adoration is recorded in the Church Fathers, and is affirmed by the Councils.

Though you might not embrace it... this is the most ancient interpretation and practice of the Church concerning Mary. Your minimizing view of her didn't begin until 1500's.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Christopher0121

Brother In Christ
Jun 28, 2011
557
304
Ohio
✟43,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And as I asked; what did this mean in practice?

As I read through Acts, I don't see Peter as head of the church. He was prominent in it for a while, yes, but not head of it.

First, I think it is important to agree upon what the authority to "bind and loose" means. Because, this will help us find Peter "binding and loosing" in Scripture. I take it to mean how the Jewish Encyclopedia explains it...

Binding and loosing (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabbinical term for ‘forbidding and permitting'. The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” . . . The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast day (Talmud: Ta’anit 12a). . . . This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).​

It is the authority to "forbid and permit". It holds the power to banish and readmit to fellowship. It is the authority to make decisions concerning the Church to loose and bind in the way of practice and interpretation. It is the authority to also loose and bind as it might relate to feast days and other practices. Even if we never see Peter use this authority in the Scriptures... we see Jesus giving this authority to Peter. That can stand alone. However, once we properly define Peter's authority to bind and loose, we can see it as it relates to not only the message of the Church preached at Pentecost in Acts 2, but also the authority to admit Samaritans to the Church through the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8, Peter's authority to curse the magician (Simon) in Acts 8, the authorization to baptize Gentiles in Acts 10, the calling to order of the Jerusalem Council, and the implications made in his Epistles. Not to mention the affirmation of the Church Fathers of Peter's preeminent authority in the Church documented throughout the first 500 years of the Holy Church.

How do you see the authority to "bind and loose"???

No one said, "well Peter has the keys of the kingdom, we'd better ask him", or "Peter has more authority than anyone, we need to ask him before we pray for this person/celebrate the Lord's Supper/start a new congregation." In Acts 13 it was the Holy Spirit who said "set aside Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them", not Peter who said "I am going to ordain you to this ministry."

I don't see Peter "binding and loosing", except maybe when he healed or drove out demons. But that was God working through Peter - and he did the same for Saul.
We don't hear anything of Peter after Acts 15 - except for when he had an argument with Paul and was called a hypocrite. You would have thought that if he knew he was head of the church he would have written letters and instructions to its members; how to appoint bishops, when and how to baptise, how to decide when a person had a gift or calling, do not celebrate the Lord's supper if I'm not there, etc etc. Where is it?

Why did he not write more? Why did the church allow Paul did do so much, if Peter had the most authority? Why did the man who had "the keys of the Kingdom", whatever that means, not have any say in who was allowed to become born again and therefore enter the Kingdom?

What if I were to tell you we do see Peter doing this, you've just never been shown these things from the most ancient angle of interpretation? As I wrote above... Peter's authority to bind and loose we can see it as it relates to not only the message of the Church preached at Pentecost in Acts 2, but also the authority to admit Samaritans to the Church through the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8, Peter's authority to curse the magician (Simon) in Acts 8, the authorization to baptize Gentiles in Acts 10, the calling to order of the Jerusalem Council, and the implications made in his Epistles. In fact, we see the most authoritative movements of the early Church after Christ's ascension executed at the pastoral authority of Peter.

You can post quotes from 1,000 sources and all the pictures you like and write words in big, bold font in case I can't see them; I'm asking "where, in the book of Acts and in fact the NT, do we see Peter as having the ultimate authority over all the churches?"

I'll repeat what I said above... Peter's authority to bind and loose we can see it as it relates to not only the message of the Church preached at Pentecost in Acts 2, but also the authority to admit Samaritans to the Church through the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8, Peter's authority to curse the magician (Simon) in Acts 8, the authorization to baptize Gentiles in Acts 10, the calling to order of the Jerusalem Council, and the implications made in his Epistles. In fact, we see the most authoritative movements of the early Church after Christ's ascension were executed at the pastoral authority of Peter.

Where does it say, "only people who were ordained by Peter, or someone who was themselves ordained by Peter, are 'valid' Priests/Ministers?"

The authority Christ gave to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 was clearly a delegated authority from Himself. So, this authority ultimately rests in Christ Jesus and is only conferred upon men. The Fathers record the universal understanding throughout the early Church that Peter not only held said authority but passed it down just as Christ delegated it to him...

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Cathage
“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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [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” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I
“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica
“f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).



“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

Ambrose of Milan
“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘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 shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . ” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I
“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter” (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).

“Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]” (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).​

Now, this isn't to say that there are not valid men and women of God who are anointed by God for very special ministries who are not a part of this succession. However, as it relates to the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Church of the ages... our priests, deacons, bishops, and Popes have preserved in historic succession the authoritative office of Peter and the Holy Church for 2,000 years. That's actually quite a miracle in itself, testifying to Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church He appointed Peter to guide.
 
Upvote 0

jamiec

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2020
567
262
Scotland
✟69,975.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I take no pleasure in pointing them out my friend which is why I did refrain from actually naming them but they do give evidence to what took place at that time which I think is important on that particular subject we were discussing.
Where does one cross over from mentioning things that need to be mentioned for the sake of historical truthfulness, to atrocity-swapping ?
 
Upvote 0

jamiec

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2020
567
262
Scotland
✟69,975.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
First, I think it is important to agree upon what the authority to "bind and loose" means. Because, this will help us find Peter "binding and loosing" in Scripture. I take it to mean how the Jewish Encyclopedia explains it...

Binding and loosing (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabbinical term for ‘forbidding and permitting'. The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” . . . The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast day (Talmud: Ta’anit 12a). . . . This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).​

It is the authority to "forbid and permit". It holds the power to banish and readmit to fellowship. It is the authority to make decisions concerning the Church to loose and bind in the way of practice and interpretation. It is the authority to also loose and bind as it might relate to feast days and other practices. Even if we never see Peter use this authority in the Scriptures... we see Jesus giving this authority to Peter. That can stand alone. However, once we properly define Peter's authority to bind and loose, we can see it as it relates to not only the message of the Church preached at Pentecost in Acts 2, but also the authority to admit Samaritans to the Church through the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8, Peter's authority to curse the magician (Simon) in Acts 8, the authorization to baptize Gentiles in Acts 10, the calling to order of the Jerusalem Council, and the implications made in his Epistles. Not to mention the affirmation of the Church Fathers of Peter's preeminent authority in the Church documented throughout the first 500 years of the Holy Church.

How do you see the authority to "bind and loose"???



What if I were to tell you we do see Peter doing this, you've just never been shown these things from the most ancient angle of interpretation? As I wrote above... Peter's authority to bind and loose we can see it as it relates to not only the message of the Church preached at Pentecost in Acts 2, but also the authority to admit Samaritans to the Church through the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8, Peter's authority to curse the magician (Simon) in Acts 8, the authorization to baptize Gentiles in Acts 10, the calling to order of the Jerusalem Council, and the implications made in his Epistles. In fact, we see the most authoritative movements of the early Church after Christ's ascension executed at the pastoral authority of Peter.



I'll repeat what I said above... Peter's authority to bind and loose we can see it as it relates to not only the message of the Church preached at Pentecost in Acts 2, but also the authority to admit Samaritans to the Church through the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 8, Peter's authority to curse the magician (Simon) in Acts 8, the authorization to baptize Gentiles in Acts 10, the calling to order of the Jerusalem Council, and the implications made in his Epistles. In fact, we see the most authoritative movements of the early Church after Christ's ascension were executed at the pastoral authority of Peter.



The authority Christ gave to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 was clearly a delegated authority from Himself. So, this authority ultimately rests in Christ Jesus and is only conferred upon men. The Fathers record the universal understanding throughout the early Church that Peter not only held said authority but passed it down just as Christ delegated it to him...

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Cathage
“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?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [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” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I
“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica
“f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).



“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

Ambrose of Milan
“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘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 shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . ” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I
“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter” (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).

“Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]” (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).​
Now, this isn't to say that there are not valid men and women of God who are anointed by God for very special ministries who are not a part of this succession. However, as it relates to the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Church of the ages... our priests, deacons, bishops, and Popes have preserved in historic succession the authoritative office of Peter and the Holy Church for 2,000 years. That's actually quite a miracle in itself, testifying to Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church He appointed Peter to guide.
Were the Fathers at Chalcedon approving the orthodoxy of the Tome of Leo - or deferring to the teaching authority of the See of Rome as personified by St Leo ?

It seems to me that the answer to the question depends on one’s point of view. That neither answer is the only possible one. That is the trouble with quoting excerpts from the Fathers: they can often be taken in different senses by the disputants in a debate.

And they can legitimately be taken in different senses, which can have vastly different practical results.
 
Upvote 0