 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by dwashbur
That's funny KJV uses “blessed art thou.” As do most all recognized translations. Are you saying all are all wrong? Originally Posted by dwashbur
Ephesians 2:20-21 Interesting note about Simon Bar-Johnah. BAR-JONAH Simon Peter's surname. Peter was the son of Jonah. Jesus hailed him by his family name at the time he bestowed on him his new name. "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). (Etym. Greek bar ionas, from Aramaic bar yonah, son of Jonah; Hebrew yonah, dove.) Catholic Culture : Dictionary : BAR-JONAH Seeing that Simon has the Hebrew meaning, “he has heard” with the surname meaning “dove”, which in most cultures nuances of peace, Matthew 16:17 takes a special significance. Christ renames the son of peace who has heard the son of the living God, a 'rock.' Peter is made the living foundation (or cornerstone if you prefer that metaphor) of the Church. Even the location can't be discounted; Caesarea Philippi is a region that has a large rock outcrop that forms a cliff. Christ's intent is clear and his words have faithfully survived in His Bride for 2,000 years. Originally Posted by dwashbur
John 1:42 (English Standard Version) He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of(A) John? You shall be called(B) Cephas" (which means(C) Peter[a]). Footnotes: a. John 1:42 Cephas and Peter are from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively Cross references: A. John 1:42 : John 21:15-17 B. John 1:42 : 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 C. John 1:42 : Matt 16:18 John 1:42 - PassageLookup - Darby Translation - BibleGateway.com Originally Posted by dwashbur
But then you've got to deal with the historical ramifications of Christ's founding of the Church on Peter. The following is but a few references to Peter in various writings and manuscripts, i.e. the Tradition of the Church: It's important to note, that these were the Bishops and Popes that followed Peter. They didn't need to write a book, they lived the history of Apostolic succession and knew its teaching authority first hand. To these men head of the Church was fused to the Chair of Peter since Peter's death. I've but together various quotes from the early Church dating from the early Church, approximately 90 AD to about 400 AD. Each consistently shows that Peter was held to be the Prime Bishop, Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome the first See, holder of the keys, etc. But I will only bore you with the first two pages. It's quite clear that Peter was understood to be the first Vicar of Christ. Doctrine and authority of the bishop in Rome was then passed to Clement I, (CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)) bishop of Rome (circa 90 AD rebuked the Corinthian authority. It is likely the Apostle John was still alive. Pope Clement both rebukes the schism to pull the Corinthian Church in line. Here too we see a further congealing of the Church's Apostolic and priestly structure. We see a historical continuance the Church in the latter part of the first century. A well defined hierarchy can be clearly deduced. In The Shepherd of Hermas, (CHURCH FATHERS: The Shepherd of Hermas, Book I) Hermas wrote, “You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens [bishop of Rome] and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his [authoritative letter] to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.” It's not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs. St. Ignatius holds a marked reverence (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Romans (St. Ignatius)) for the founders of the Christian faith in Rome as well as a respect for their authority. Furthermore he seems to be deferring to Rome on several matters in his epistle to the Romans, c 110 AD. When arrested and sent to Rome to eventually be martyred sometime between 98 and 117, he entrusts his diocese in Antioch to the Roman See; twice using the term prokathetai (primacy); “has the primacy in the place of the region of the Romans” presiding in love (prokathemene tes agapes). Furthermore we find St Ignatius using phases such as 'first-seat' and the Episcopal seat, "You [the Roman bishop] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1). Marching through time we find St. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing around 180 AD, CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus) " Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. St. Irenaeus describes St. Victor's (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Irenaeus) excommunication of the Asian Churches from the Universal Church in other writings. Equally important was the fact that no one challenged St. Victor's authority in the excommunication. St. Victor was the bishop of Rome, 189-19. St. Irenaeus wrote to him and pleaded with him not to do it, for the sake of the peace of the Church, and St. Victor relented. St. Clement (CHURCH FATHERS: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (St. Clement of Alexandria)) of Alexandria (between 190-210 AD), in Clement, On the Rich Man, writes, " Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “ Tertullian (c. 200 AD) refers to the Pope as the first bishop of bishops, “ Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men” From which we can also deduce that it was important to trace the heredity of the bishop to the Apostles. " Tertullian )CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)) also wrote, "What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11 which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?." Depicted here is the knowledge that Christ ordained his Apostles; establish His Church in them, commissioned them to teach with Christ's authority symbolized in the keys. Tertullian writes further, "Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, 'whence also our authority derives'. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island." JoeT |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Again I appreciate all the effort you put into the quotes and all, and I did read them. However, church tradition doesn't really cut any ice with me, so it doesn't change my mind about anything. And once again, I do not see any hint of apostolic succession in the Bible. Church leaders after the apostles can claim it, but I don't see any scriptural basis for it. At that point I'm willing to agree to disagree, with one exception: you did catch me on the phrase "founded on Peter" and nailed me good. I stand corrected. |
||||
|
||||
|
classyT, Sorry but I FULLY DISAGREE. If Jesus would have wanted us to believe that the bread He consecrated was symbolically His body he would have mad that clear. Instead He said, "This IS my body. This IS my blood." Jesus even made it clear when He said this is the NEW COVENANT. Something that important would not have been symbolic. We are living in New Covenant times. No, In the passage about Peter I am adding nothing nor taking away anything. Jesus was talking directly to and about Peter. The language is clear on that. Only people who can not see that of refuse to are those who THINK that what is says is to Catholic. They do not realize that the Church from the first year on took Jesus' words at what they say. We know that from what is said about it in Acts and elsewhere in the bible. Such as here... Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
||||
|
dwashbur, Let me put it this way... it is clear to me that Jesus was talking to and about Peter. It's not just me but also over about a billion people and a great many theologians in several denominations. One thing about this subject about Peter and how and what he was and became, it has been a great discussion, question and answer topic for many years after the reformation. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
||||
|
Was Peter the first Pope? Was Peter even IN Rome? In my regular reading, I came to the book of Romans for the umpteenth time, and suddenly it hit me! Why did Paul even write the letter to the Romans? In it he spoke of his desire to see them and preach to them. WHY? If Peter was the bishop of Rome, then there was no need for Paul to write to them or to go there. Why would the Holy Spirit send two of the top level Apostles to the same city at the same time? If Paul needed to minister to the people at Rome, then Peter wasn't doing his job! |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by galveston
Peter and Paul could have made journeys to Rome without any idea that each was doing it. Journeys in the ancient world took many months, even years, and so a letter would take a long time to be delivered. Rome was the centre of the empire and Paul was forced to go there, and was a prisioner there for two years, and his journey had begun years before, but don't we have visiting evangelists? Does that mean the locals aren't doing their job. Paul was the person who spread christianity throughout the Roman empire so there was every reason why he would visit Rome |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by galveston
Yes, Peter was the 'first Pope.' The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. (Pope Leo I [Reigned 440-461](Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) I’m constantly amazed at the bible-only crowd. “Peter was never in Rome – there is no scriptural reference to Peter being in Rome,” so they say. The first thought that might come to mind is to ask, where else would he be? Christ didn’t have any problem feasting with the publicans so if his mission is to teach, wouldn’t His envoy find his way to the center of the world. That is to say, Men don’t “light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house” (Cf. Matthew 5:15). “that the light of Truth which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head itself. What nation had not representatives then living in this city; or what peoples did not know what Rome had learnt? Here it was that the tenets of philosophy must be crushed, here that the follies of earthly wisdom must be dispelled, here that the cult of demons must be refuted, here that the blasphemy of all idolatries must be rooted out, here where the most persistent superstition had gathered together all the various errors which had anywhere been devised” (Ibid.) In spite of our muffled candle let’s see if we can find Peter’s apartment number in Rome. It’s been established that Peter died in Rome, hung upside-down on a cross along the road to Ostia. The last I heard this was very, very, close to Rome; buried in a spot over which the Vatican was built. And we have witnesses. Tertullian writes: “Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.” (as quoted by Eusebius, Church History II.1 CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book II (Eusebius)) Eusebius also tells us through the words of Caisus that nobody was condemned by Nero “unless it was something of great excellence.” Accordingly, we have the most excellent Peter in Rome according to witnesses. When Christ turned to Peter and said, “Follow me” He bound Peter like no other: "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19). John prefigured Peter’s end on this earth. (Ibid.). Using the term ‘Babylon’ was double speak in antiquity for ‘Rome.’ St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111). CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles Eusebius’ history tells us that Peter also preached ‘Church Doctrine’ in Rome. From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle. (Ibid.) These testimonies (and many more I won’t bore you with) by contemporaries show that Peter took up residence in Rome, functioned as ‘the first Pope’ and was recognized by the Church as the first Apostle among his equals, i.e. the first Pope. JoeT |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by JoeT777
|
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Dealing With My Emotions - Trials and Tribulations
[ 9 Answers ]
I recently went through a very unexpected breakup with my boyfriend of 4 years. The breakup brought a lot of issues to my attention - I have sought professional help to deal with these issues so they do not affect me later in life. My question(s) - One of my issues was that I was not an...
View more questions Search
|
