Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 the Orthodox say Saint James was the head of the council of Jeruselam because he concluded it. Is this true? how would i counter that. I know in that council peter defined the first Dogma Acts chapter 15 and was the first one to speak. any Ideas? Sam
thessalonian Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 Well if you look at the text there was considerable discussion and debate. Peter's words silenced the debate on the matter of circumcision. Peter alone makes the decision concerning that matter. James states his "judgement" concerning meat sacrificed to idols. There is a concurance among all on that statement. James was speaking for his diocese in Jerusalem so his statement "it is my judgement" is not unexpected in Catholic theology. However the broader Church does not just submit to him but concurs. Peter's words are final. James words bring about concurance.
Myles Domini Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) St Peter speaks first as he has the honoured place in the assembly, St James then closes the Council because its in the place of his episcopate. I've never heard any Orthodox utilise the argument you're presenting and I would be surprised if they did given that the Oriental Fathers were united with the Occidental Fathers in proclaiming [url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]the Petrine primacy[/url]. PS) Canon 28 of Chalcedon was confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This canon whilst conveying honours to Constantinople owed to Rome does not impact upon Rome's place as centre and guardian of Orthodoxy. Edited January 10, 2006 by Myles
qfnol31 Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 [quote]I've never heard any Orthodox utilise the argument you're presenting and I would be surprised if they did given that the Oriental Fathers were united with the Occidental Fathers in proclaiming the Petrine primacy.[/quote] I have, quite often in fact.
Myles Domini Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) How quaint... [quote]In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.) [/quote] Edited January 10, 2006 by Myles
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 10, 2006 Author Posted January 10, 2006 they annoy so much i gave a good dozen quotes by church fathers explaining petrine primacy, etc. they said The catholic church edited the documents.
Myles Domini Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 10 2006, 06:47 PM']they annoy so much i gave a good dozen quotes by church fathers explaining petrine primacy, etc. they said The catholic church edited the documents. [right][snapback]851723[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A good piece of advise I heard once EENS: It is useless to listen to those who will not listen to you. Perhaps, as St Ambrose counselled St Monica, you should speak more to God about them than to them about God. Edited January 10, 2006 by Myles
thessalonian Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:43 PM']I have, quite often in fact. [right][snapback]851716[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It's common in Protestant circles as well. They like to downplay Peter even though the NT talks about him far more than any other Apostle including James. Peter always speaks first for the group and is listed first among the Apostles. These facts are of course is insigificant. They won't of course make Jame their "pope" as they like to have Paul as an unofficial "pope". Not that I have anything against Paul. Edited January 10, 2006 by thessalonian
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 10, 2006 Author Posted January 10, 2006 do you think i should stop the debate? and pray instead?
thessalonian Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:48 PM'] A good piece of advise I heard once EENS: It is useless to listen to those who will not listen to you. Perhaps, as St Ambrose counselled St Monica, you should speak more to God about them than to them about God. [right][snapback]851725[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Stated succintly by a great Catholic saint: #14 Don't waste your time and your energy — which belong to God — throwing stones at the dogs that bark at you on your way. Ignore them. A friend and I started a barking dog award when I first started doing apologetics on another board. It didn't go over too well with the prots.
Myles Domini Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Jan 10 2006, 06:50 PM']It's common in Protestant circles as well. They like to downplay Peter even though the NT talks about him far more than any other Apostle including James. Peter always speaks first for the group and is listed first among the Apostles. These facts are of course is insigificant. They won't of course make Jame their "pope" as they like to have Paul as an unofficial "pope". Not that I have anything against Paul. [right][snapback]851726[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No problem with seeing Papal authority as to some extent encompassing the Pauline commission to the Gentiles [quote]2. 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 Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.--Adv.Her. 3:3:2[/quote]
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 10, 2006 Author Posted January 10, 2006 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Jan 10 2006, 01:58 PM']Stated succintly by a great Catholic saint: #14 Don't waste your time and your energy — which belong to God — throwing stones at the dogs that bark at you on your way. Ignore them. A friend and I started a barking dog award when I first started doing apologetics on another board. It didn't go over too well with the prots. [right][snapback]851736[/snapback][/right] [/quote]
thessalonian Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 [quote name='Myles' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:59 PM']No problem with seeing Papal authority as to some extent encompassing the Pauline commission to the Gentiles [right][snapback]851737[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Understood.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 10, 2006 Author Posted January 10, 2006 Guys, I think i have done something foolish..... i joined another coptic forum to debate these people. This one seems more friendly though. they keep saying that the ROCK in scripture always refers to God. I mean it does make sense. How do i counter this. [quote]“The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold..” Psalm 18:1 “The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.” Psalm 118:22 “ And all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” 1 Cor. 10:4 1- The “ Rock “, in the Holy Bible, is always The Lord Jesus Christ, as the previous versus testify. 2- The Lord even rebuked the Pharisees by using the second verse to denote about Himself. 3- It is so wrong to ascribe the rock to be St. Peter, The Lord meant in that verse that the words of Peter “ You are the Christ the Son of the Living God “, describe the faith that the Church will be built on it. 4- St. Peter and the rest of the Disciples understood that meaning very well, because later on they were arguing between themselves who is the greater among them. This circumstances would had never happened if they knew that the lord had already chose Peter to be the boss among them. 5- And you do not like for St. Peter, after few verses in the same famous chapter 16 of the book of Matthew, to be described as ......... "But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."[/quote]
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 10, 2006 Author Posted January 10, 2006 how? i have heard that peters confession that Christ is lord can not be seperated from peter. is this true?
Myles Domini Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 10 2006, 07:48 PM']how? i have heard that peters confession that Christ is lord can not be seperated from peter. is this true? [right][snapback]851812[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Peter couldnt be the rock if not for Christ. Give the copts some of their own teaching e.g. from St Cyril of Alexandria: [quote]He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131) [/quote]
thessalonian Posted January 10, 2006 Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) To supplement Myles, that is a false dichotomy. Christ is the rock and so is peter. We are the light of the world and so is Christ. Christ is the foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11). This does not mean that Apostles and prophets are not the foundation (eph 2:20). Catholicism is both/and rather than either or. Christ works through men, he worked through Peter and the Popes. When the Pope speaks under the authority of the keys, Christ is directing his Church and so Christ is the rock.\ I saw a study once on the Church fathers. A signficant number identified Peter with Matt 16:18 (17 as I recall). This is considered the literal interpretation. I believe it was 4 identified Peter's confession as the rock. And a large number, perhaps 20 identified Christ as the Rock. Interestingly enough several identified both Christ and Peter as the object of Matt 16:18, showing that the Church in it's earliest days did not limit the passage to one interpretation.. Christ is an allowable spiritual interprutation. The point is that there is no contradiction, no dichotomy. Understanding can be gleaned from both understandings. Edited January 10, 2006 by thessalonian
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now