Friday, April 18, 2014

Guest article by "Rich of Medford" (Rich Peterson) on "Global Warming" n/k/a "Climate Change"

To my readers:

I am presently in beautiful Roseburg, Oregon near Eugene and Cottage Grove where I also spoke a few years ago (2006).  I'm speaking for a group of really nice people in Canyonville, Oregon, Lighted Way Ministries.  I return to Michigan on Tuesday, April 22nd.  Richard Peterson, known to most of us as "Rich of Medford" has prepared an article and kindly submitted it for publication here which I am more than honored to do.  He would appreciate your "on topic" comments.  So would I.

Constance

"CLIMATE CHANGE"

by Richard Peterson

Last month the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts of climate change.  The message that civilization is on the brink of collapse ought to raise a sense of déjà vu in those familiar with the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment materials, in part, because that is the IPCC’s template.  The Stockholm Conference served to consolidate the environmental movement and provided it with a political voice.

Stockholm’s message was one of urgency: exponential growth would cause the planet to exceed its capacity to sustain human life.  Earth’s carrying capacity was estimated to be one-half of the 1970 population level, or approximately 1.7 billion people.  We were quickly approaching an irreversible environmental crisis caused by the pressures of industrialization and overpopulation.  The crisis later manifested itself as global cooling which changed to global warming and today is called climate change.  The solution proposed was to achieve balance following drastic population reduction with each nation sharing proportionately in the reduction.  Failure to take immediate action would lead to repercussions felt as early as the 1990s; a breakdown in civilization was inevitable.

While some may be unfamiliar with the political process started at Stockholm its subsequent constructs are well known.  Stockholm’s 20-year follow-up was the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.  Conference participants introduced what they considered to be a world constitution known as the Earth Charter.   (The Earth Summit is also commonly known as Agenda21 while the Charter is known as the biodiversity treaty.)  More recently, the 2012 Rio+20 Conference, concentrated on mobilization and the implementation of the framework.  The Occupy Movement is closely connected to this political process.

Stockholm Conference Secretariat Maurice Strong set the stage saying that the environmental crisis transcends national boundaries and that “no one nation can go it alone”;  global problems require global solutions and need to be managed by a supra national authority.  Yet Strong understood the sensitivities developing nations had about yielding sovereignty so he worked to alleviate their fears.  Nonetheless, the Stockholm Conference preparatory committees indicate otherwise:  erosion of national sovereignty would be necessary but would not be accepted for at least a generation or more.

The adopted environmental crisis would need to be prostituted if Stockholm’s political agenda were to be advanced.  The April 14-16, 1972 preparatory Conference on the Environmental Crisis-International Justice states “In global environmental control…politicization of issues is necessary and desirable if action on environmental problems is to be forthcoming.  Although politics…can be counterproductive, action can be obtained only through the effective use of political processes…International politics, in the Bismarkian sense, can and generally do lead to the prostitution of issues in order to get the upper hand.”




This year we are witnessing politicization of the climate change “crisis” in full swing.  Secretary of State John Kerry set climate change as a top priority for all US ambassadors.   Hillary Clinton called for mass mobilization that demands political change.  Senate Democrats held an all night talkathon to bring attention to the crisis.  The Obama Administration announced the establishment of regional climate hubs to assist farmers and landowners deal with the crisis.  These hubs, one might expect, will take the lead role in the Administration’s war on cow flatulence and wood burning stoves.

The International Justice preparatory committee was charged with identifying the environmental crisis for Stockholm.   Whitman Bassow, Stockholm Conference’s Public Affairs Officer, delivered the keynote address.  Participants were asked “what kind of vehicle will get the world community along the road that we’ll have to travel?”  The vehicle would be given to Earth Watch the newly created environmental watchdog.  The selected issue would serve a purpose:  “this very pedestrian nature of the Stockholm Conference may be an advantage for another reason:  in a revolution you have to have an idea and an ideal.”

While the preparatory committee brainstormed for a crisis to avert they were hard pressed to identify one.  “It is quite difficult to state what the major problem is on a global scale, and it is extremely difficult to set priorities…Sometime something is going to happen that is truly irretrievable, but we have not come to this.  What is most likely to become irreversible?  Should this be the topic of the Stockholm Conference?  Not really because Stockholm is looking to world-wide situations and there is no particular environmental (pollution, at least) issue that needs an immediate global response.”

The committee, however, did conclude with a recommendation.  “Earth Watch as a global effort at environmental cooperation, should obviously be directed to a global problem.  The problem priority for Earth Watch should involve that global problem which may most easily become irreversible.  We suggest that seas and oceans…represent a prime global concern.”

The crisis which underlies the rising seas and oceans is global warming.  Stockholm’s roadmap for averting this crisis includes:  1) global governance; 2) the erosion of national sovereignty; 3) the erosion of private property rights; 4) the redefinition of religious beliefs; and 5) the formation of a supra national moral authority (a role now claimed by the UN’s Alliance of Civilizations initiative).

The time for debate is over declare those convinced of human caused climate change and they really mean it.  The UK now seeks to severely restrict climate change critics to be heard.  CNN’s Carol Costello declared the climate debate over and used a discredited survey to portray a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans have caused global warming.   President Obama’s “we don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society” message reflects a strategy of ridicule and marginalization typically employed by the radical left.  The marriage of politics and environmentalism has made is especially difficult for dissenting scientists.  The media has shown itself to be, more or less, escorts.

Evidence shows that climate scientists are far from unanimous in their agreement.  The US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works posted a report showing more than 700 international scientists dissent that man is causing global warming.  The International Climate Science Coalition exists to counter the global warming scare.  The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference was overshadowed by “climategate” where hacked e-mails suggested that dissenting scientific opinion had been suppressed by IPCC scientists.

The Stockholm International Justice committee concluded “we respectfully ask all to consider the world’s resources as the common property of all man.  No person or nation has an absolute right to any property.  Private or national property exists merely to offer to an individual or nation a decent quality of life.  It carries with it the responsibility to share with those in need.  We suggest that all consider the proposition that the right to property (whether individually or nationally held) must be looked on as a guarantee of the capability and obligation to share it with those in need.”


Repackaged communism is being delivered to us through the vehicle of the environmental movement.  History has demonstrated Marxism does not work.  The people of the United States need to carefully consider and resist any attempts to yield national sovereignty and property rights to a supranational authority which, upon scrutiny, shows it holds very different values than those of a free people.


260 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 260 of 260
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"That is your imputation. Now would you kindly answer the question that you have just ducked a third time: Does not the fact that an ordinand is made "a priest" in the Orthodox rite of ordination imply that he is not viewed "as a priest" in Orthodoxy beforehand? Bringing in categories of priest at this stage is just muddying the water; that can be discussed next, but first please just clarify whether it is Yes or No."

while to the average Orthodox the answer is yes, if you dig into things more you get what a priest told me, which is what I told you,
I didn;'t duck anything I explained it.

AND YOU HAVE NOT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE of the Exodus cite, which Peter quotes, that all Israel was a nation of priests to God.

Clearly THE priesthood and the laity are gradations of priesthood. This is what the priest said.

I think of bees, add royal jelly to a normal egg and it becomes a queen rather than a worker but it is all part of the same colony,

hierarchy above rather than within is a nonsensical notion. There is no such thing.

Any clergy is part of the same congregation he runs. Any boss over a business is part of the same business as his employees. not the same thing of course, but both are cases you could call hierarchy within something that is in fact over it.

Paul said to train trustworthy men who will train others. 2 Timothy 2:2. there is the start of a kind of succession right there, of a core of people who will transmit the truth and rebuke error.

Heb. 13:17 speaks of them that have rule over you and have to make accounting for your souls (that they were entrusted with).

Before Gutenberg, this is the only way we had the Bible by the way. someone kept and approved copying approved the copies, etc.

now, do you consider that the Eucharist has real presence of Jesus Christ's Body and Blood? if yes, then your concern is can laity do this without a priest.

Orthodox and RC and Anglicans say no. Tertullian however addressed
some Christians making mention
in passing that the laity together do this, if a priest is not available.

Since the Montanists simply rotated priesthood in turns through everyone, there was always a priest present, so this could not have been addressed to them from the days Tertullian was with the Montanist heretics. The epiclesis in itself, makes this possible, because the transformation is trusted to The Holy Spirit more than to the priest.

But this is not considered a possibility now and for good order
and discipline, so people can't go hog wild or heretical, get excommunicated and figure they can still have The Body and Blood of Christ without approval of the priest, this has been suppressed.
And, absent paranormal sight, one could deceive oneself thinking one had The Real Presence without it being there.

This is not good for the soul. Also, this limitation minimizes the liklihood of partaking in an unworthy manner, loaded with unrepented of and known sin and/or "not perceiving The Lord's Body," or just doing this Eucharist in rebellion, and thus bringing more judgement at The Last Judgement (or sooner) on oneself.

It is thus protective to limit production and distribution to the priesthood.

If you do not believe in the real presence, what are you concerned about?

Transfer or succession is implicitly built in and implied when you have the model of Paul consecrating Titus or Timothy and then telling them to train a special clique of men who can pass on right doctrine.

I think when you see "priesthood of all believers" you think "yay I am as classy and powerful as a priest" when in fact there are levels, just like in Israel

ISRAEL ALSO WAS A NATION OF PRIESTS, but only a select category could perform the sacrifices. Even among that category was some distinctions.

Anonymous said...

"hierarchy above rather than within is a nonsensical notion."

I think my words were sufficiently clear but as you do not then I shall explain what I am saying without using the word hierarchy. I am asserting that according to scripture there are two tiers within a congregation (episkopoi/presbyteroi, and those whom they oversee), and none above the congregation.

ME: Does not the fact that an ordinand is made "a priest" in the Orthodox rite of ordination imply that he is not viewed "as a priest" in Orthodoxy beforehand? Bringing in categories of priest at this stage is just muddying the water; that can be discussed next, but first please just clarify whether it is Yes or No."

YOU: while to the average Orthodox the answer is yes...

Then why is the wording just that he is ordained AS A PRIEST, not that he is ordained as a certain category of priest? And why do most Orthodox coming away from church, if hailed on the street and asked if they are a priest, say No? (If you reckon the answer is ignorance, why do the hierarchy - who surely know the situation - not move to correct it?)

I don't wish to discuss the real presence with you; my apologies.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

a priest over a congregation is still part of that congregation.

there is no such thing as a hierarchy over and outside of an organization, period. It doesn't exist. The only similar thing would be an organization that is in authority over another organization.

In the military, the hierarchy from general to private is still part of the same army.

you are trying to evade the possibility of being accountable to anyone but God directly, Who is real convenient to have as only boss, as distinct from boss over all and to Whom you owe obedience when lesser authorities go against His orders.

God is convenient to the arrogant, because He doesn't talk much or take much direct action so you can run wild, or even not just engage the sin of pride and still feel okay.

That said, there are times when you have to reject all human and church authority because they have gone totally wrong, Luther was a case in point, so was St. Maximos the Confessor, and those who were the few non arians in some locations. There was Elijah and Elisha. But these are rare and awful times.

But such heroes are not supposed to be an occasion for cultivating pride.

Anonymous said...

"you are trying to evade the possibility of being accountable to anyone but God directly"

How can you possibly extract that from the fact that I said the congregation were overseen by (and therefore answer to) the overseers? What I am saying is that above the overseers is the point at which the buck is transferred from earth to heaven. That has to happen at some point in ANY church system.

You are still trying to muddy the water by using the word "hierarchy" when I rephrased my comments without using it.

Anonymous said...

All Christine seems to be enthralled with is religion. I gather from all of her constant insistence is to uphold her idea of religion no matter what she has to throw under the bus. Do I see, do I hear, a love for Jesus in all this verbosity? In a word...No.


That is what religion does to faith, what it does to the soul.


No wonder the new agers have easy pickin's among the already religious.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://drmsh.com/2014/05/17/why-you-dont-learn-much-bible-in-church/

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://orthodoxforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=520

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2013/08/stump-priest-priesthood.html

Susanna said...

Craig,

RE:If apostolic succession is true, would it not follow that there should be successors to James, John, Philip, Thomas, Matthias, etc., as well? That is, shouldn't there be twelve in total (no more) throughout history with Peter's successor as the 'head' of these twelve? And what about Paul (Saul of Tarsus) - should there be a 'mantle of Paul'?

Excellent point, Craig. To this very day, the Roman Catholic Bishops are regarded by Roman Catholics as successors to the Apostles.

As Tertullian wrote:

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).


However, as a matter of history, there is no other Church beside Rome linked to any other Apostle beside Peter by an unbroken chain of successors.

Anonymous said...

The only unbroken chain is the one around the heart and soul of the deceived

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"However, as a matter of history, there is no other Church beside Rome linked to any other Apostle beside Peter by an unbroken chain of successors. "

wrong. Antioch has Peter as first bishop. Unbroken chain to now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

quick source, but other sources and check the sources they cite.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

My interest in Orthodoxy is purity of the faith taking in all angles of Biblical doctrine and the ceremonies that embody these and the focus on Jesus even prayers to saints and Mary are asking them to pray for us to Him.

The issues of hierarchy are ones you arguers raised.

But so you have one bishop and elders over a church, who is the bishop to be answerable to?

a synod of equals, other bishops who review things.

Convenience produced the patriarchates, plus mirroring the world arrangement, and Paul's approach of going to cities from which the faith would go to the hinterlands.

Paul's letter to the Romans addresses an existing congregation, but PETER DIDN'T FOUND THEM, he got there only in the last two years of his life, and whether first bishop or appointed first bishop is an issue sort of, it would still be a succession from his appointment.

But Antioch had Peter as first bishop. Byzantium's first bishop was appointed by Peter's brother. Alexandria's first bishop was Mark, Peter's son or disciple. Jerusalem however had James as first bishop, but was founded at Peter's preaching.

the undivided early church was founded in a sense on Peter, on his preaching, AT THAT MOMENT THE STATEMENT OF JESUS WAS FULFILEED,
in Jerusalem and not in Rome.

And in a lesser sense in the petrine connections of major nodes of the network that developed.

Apostolic successions are bishop to bishop. Once you have a Peter or James or whoever bishop consecrate someone, regardless of the original succession lineage, the bishop has the lineage of his consecrator, and eventually all the possible lineages cames under those of the big cities once the patriarchs were consecrating bishops.

that is why you have so few lineages left.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

My interest in Orthodoxy is purity of the faith taking in all angles of Biblical doctrine and the ceremonies that embody these and the focus on Jesus even prayers to saints and Mary are asking them to pray for us to Him.

The issues of hierarchy are ones you arguers raised.

But so you have one bishop and elders over a church, who is the bishop to be answerable to?

a synod of equals, other bishops who review things.

Convenience produced the patriarchates, plus mirroring the world arrangement, and Paul's approach of going to cities from which the faith would go to the hinterlands.

Paul's letter to the Romans addresses an existing congregation, but PETER DIDN'T FOUND THEM, he got there only in the last two years of his life, and whether first bishop or appointed first bishop is an issue sort of, it would still be a succession from his appointment.

But Antioch had Peter as first bishop. Byzantium's first bishop was appointed by Peter's brother. Alexandria's first bishop was Mark, Peter's son or disciple. Jerusalem however had James as first bishop, but was founded at Peter's preaching.

the undivided early church was founded in a sense on Peter, on his preaching, AT THAT MOMENT THE STATEMENT OF JESUS WAS FULFILEED,
in Jerusalem and not in Rome.

And in a lesser sense in the petrine connections of major nodes of the network that developed.

Apostolic successions are bishop to bishop. Once you have a Peter or James or whoever bishop consecrate someone, regardless of the original succession lineage, the bishop has the lineage of his consecrator, and eventually all the possible lineages cames under those of the big cities once the patriarchs were consecrating bishops.

that is why you have so few lineages left.

Anonymous said...

If in one of the Roman Empire's persecutions of the early church, every episkopos on earth had got wiped out, but there were still plenty of committed Christians (and of course the scriptures), who made converts, who made converts, etc, did the church cease to exist a generation later despite the continuing existence of all those converts?

Those who hold to the apostolic succession say Yes. Reductio ad absurdum?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 2:50, although at present the liturgical churches view succession ordained/consecrqted clergy as essential, it is nothing God can't get around if true. In north africa into the second or third century was a practice of consecration of bishops by a groups of priests, claimed to be of Apostolic origin but fallen out of practice everywhere else so shut down by order of a council.

My guess is, things are more fluid in nature than officially thought.

The primary value of Apostolic succession originally was certainty of truth being taught, but as time passed this wasn't a reliable test either. The arian heresy infected even bishops.

Another point could be taken that this didn't happen, so God didn't allow it and won't allow it.

But the capability of laity to operate if need be without such, when doing so not in arrogance but of necessity, is underestimated.

In Tertullian's time in north africa when a priest was absent, the laity consecrated the Eucharist according to a mention in one of his letters, since the montanists simply cycled the priesthood thorugh all laity one by one in turn, they never had a situation where there was no priest, so the situation referred to by Tertullian could only happen among the Orthodox and this letter therefore is not from his own montanist period.

But "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." I Cor. 14:33 another phrasing is not a God of chaos or disorder but of order.

The demand that everything be done on the spur of the moment and supposedly this allows The Holy Spirit to operate more freely, ignores that perhaps He likes to operate through a kind of order at least as much as through disorder and "spontaneity."

the person who refused to listen to videos about how and why evangelicals became Orthodox, I see no reason to do anything but ignore you since you won't inform yourself and probably don't read other links.

talk about a religious spirit, your version of it is Calvinist minimalism so to speak, as opposed to Lutheranism which is more biblically correct.

Anonymous said...

"the person who refused to listen to videos about how and why evangelicals became Orthodox, I see no reason to do anything but ignore you since you won't inform yourself and probably don't read other links."

Not so; I have not looked at all of the links posted by you but I have read "Discovering the rich heritage of Orthodoxy" by an American pastor called Charles Bell who became Orthodox (as Serafim Bell, but after his book was published he sadly became caught up in an argument between Orthodox churches just like those he complained of between protestant denominations). You can find testimonies all ways between RC, Orthodoxy and evangelicalism, so they prove nothing. When I discuss with Orthodox or RC, I reason from the New Testament because that is what we all have in common. In such discussions I do not demand Sola Scriptura (even though I believe it). I use only the weaker argument that any church tradition must not contradict scripture.

I guess I can stand being ignored by you.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

lack of arguing between churches is not a reason to join a category of Christianity. The issue is truth and how much does it give honor to God vs. honor to men. The whole Orthodox style is honor to God.

Even the keeping of the original system of the priest (or real early "president of the church") facing away from the congregation to face God (facing East because Jesus said His Second Coming will be like the light coming from the east to the west) except reading Scrpture selection and the sermon, and all facing east therefore, is more honoring to God than the new RC and long term Protestant system that the priest or pastor faces the flock all the time. The former is God centered in style, the latter man centered.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the videos I presented mostly focus on precisely these issues, not how someone thought to find peace and quiet and no conflicts somewhere.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://benlomond.wordpress.com/1998/05/26/fr-john-weldon-hardenbrooks-defense/

This was the Ben Lomond situation. From what I gather, legitimate issues were exploited by people who liked to use the church scene as a social and ethnic scene instead of a serious dedication to God and constant prayer and church services scene, and the response unfortunately included enough pride and non compliance that the otherwise valuable effort at Ben Lomond collapsed. problems on both sides.

Still, did Fr. Serafim Bell quit Orthodoxy over this? I don't recall this being mentioned on a quick review.

Anonymous said...

"Even the keeping of the original system of the priest (or real early "president of the church") facing away from the congregation to face God (facing East because Jesus said His Second Coming will be like the light coming from the east to the west) except reading Scrpture selection and the sermon, and all facing east therefore, is more honoring to God than the new RC and long term Protestant system that the priest or pastor faces the flock all the time."

Check your church history - the purpose of the ordained priest standing sat the front facing the same way as the congregation was so that he could represent them to God. But that is a theological error because they are all priests. You have affirmed the universal priesthood already on this thread. Hebrews affirms that we need only a High Priest, and thankfully we have one - Jesus Christ. Having the ordained priest facing the same way as the congregation enshrines the fact that your system pays mere lip service to the scriptures confirming the universal priesthood (ie, 1 Pe 2:9, Rev 1:6).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

it is not a theological error, because all Israel were priests also, but within that priesthood was a core priesthood that led the rest,
so why not now?

you guys with this priesthood of all believers focus never respond to the issue, that the NT cites on this are quotes from EXODUS.

Since all are priests, in a hypothetical situation without any priest or bishop the laity acting together could create such, though I doubt present Orthodox or RC or even Anglican perspective would agree to this.

Anonymous said...

"you guys with this priesthood of all believers focus never respond to the issue, that the NT cites on this are quotes from EXODUS."

The Aaronic priesthood was necessary to run the Temple and perform the sacrifices, on behalf of the people and under the High Priest.

In the New Testament there is no Temple, and no more sacrifices are needed. The New Testament recognises only priests - all believers in Jesus - and a High Priest - Him.

You are arguing by analogy with something that has been superseded and your argument therefore carries no weight.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Hebews 7:12 Paul says, where there is a changw of priesthood there is a change of law, the sacrifices of the OT were NOT ALL ABOUT SIN many were "peace offerings" and "wave offerings" which had nothing to do with sin.

FIVE CATEGORIES OF OT SACRIFICE ONLY TWO OF WHICH WERE ABOUT SIN.

http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/tabernacle/details/offerings.htm

These things honor God and I think some of them were consumed in part by the offerer as well.

I Cor 10:21 speaks of drinking of The Lord's cup I Coir. 10:16 "the cup of blessing which we bless"

I Cor. 11:29, 30 "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD'S BODY."
Clearly something more than bread and wine and a mere signifier is involved. "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep"

Paul in compring to the levitical or aaronic priesthood, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle"

Heb. 13:10

YES sacrifice continued but not payment for sin rather communion with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which was once and for all time broken and shed for us, not repeated on the altar but a commemoration is done and into that comes His Body and Blood.

Even if RC or EO priests might say it is repeated, they are in error. And the above description in the previous paragraph, I have seen both RC and EO make.

Anonymous said...

I affirm that Holy Communion has a supernatural facet (which I never denied even though you feel the need to defend it using capital letters), and I do not believe that this facet is absent if the leader of the event has not been ordained. (I believe that certificates of ordination carry no more weight in heaven than certificates stating that a gay couple are married.)

You say that only some of the OT sacrifices were for sin. True. But the other sacrifices were fulfilled in Christ too - or why were the first Christians not told to keep bringing stuff to the Temple, and why did God permit it to be trashed?

So let's return to the issue... the Aaronic priests were needed to minister the sacrifices in the Temple and aren't needed now so the analogy you are trying to draw between the OT and the NT to justify ordination is specious.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The early Christians continued to pray in the Temple, you see this in Acts, but the Aaronic priesthood was gone from the divine system yes.

However, the offerings of gratitude to God, that sort of thing, continues - flowers, the bread wine "Thine own of Thine own we offer" and even tithing is somewhat part of this.

Given the new priesthood Melchizedec, the individual priests i.e., laity means "the people" can bring these, but even from early on you have the president of the meeting which is what presbyter must mean if presbytides means "female president" (prohibited at Nicea I) and there is some order in a meeting, God is not a God of confusion, or chaos, remember?

Someone who specializes in Scripture, in prayers remembered in Psalms which were and are the core of worship, makes sense.

Ordination by laying on of hands is shown in Acts.

In a hive all bees are bees but not all have the same role. The queen is essential, but if she dies, any worker bee larva fed royal jelly will become a queen.

Strikes me there is a subtle hint hidden in tradition about using beeswax candles and not properly any other kind of wax.

If you can have such a notion about the family and have both sexes equal but different roles and someone has to make the final decision, so that is the man (I will not bother here with biblical problems about this as an absolute rather than a contingent arrangement),

Why can you not stomach the same concept in the church at large?

I don't defend the real presence like arguing about it by using caps, I honor it.

I Corinthians 11: 2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
ordinances is "tradition" which is paradoseis, "a handing down from paradidomi or over, a tradition."
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_corinthians/11-2.htm

(Apprently this did not incl. male headship and women covering heads because he had to add this on so that is contingent on conditions like local law, custom and impression you give, and also pulls the fangs of the male supremacist system since the male headship if like that of Christ over the church, cannot be abusive or exploitive or selfish or destructive.)

This verse then shows that some traditions that were not entirely written WERE given, and you can only assume these would be things Paul saw as suitable for Christians taken from the Jewish Temple system, with suitable modifications.

2 Thess. 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Right there is biblical proof that an unwritten tradition existed, but because of the sloppy nature of oral transmission, it must have consisted of very few and simple things like prayer facing east, the sign of the cross, and so forth, such as St. Basil the Great lists as unwritten but handed on by word and action.

Act 1:21-26 shows Apostolic office being handed on by the Apostles in selecting Matthew, but they said it had to be from among those who had been with them all that time, and knew The Lord Jesus Christ's Resurrection. so this office could not be passed on after all such had died.

(Which gives me pause about bishops having inherited the office of Apostle, I think EO got it wrong there, this developed later.)

But I Tim 1:6, 4:14 and 5:22 discuss ordination by laying on of hands, to make someone have an office they did not previously have.

I think that early on, this was not given as much importance as it is now, for whatever reason. But it was not absent either.

Anonymous said...

Christine your issues have issues............


You have no life. Living on the computer to rebut absolutely everything is your life. What a shame.


Jesus would help you if you would let Him.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 8:28, maybe Jesus has given me this lay ministry.

Anonymous said...

Oh no honey. No.

Let God minister to you and then you will see how to minister to others. (even good intentions don't count)

Right now you are the poster girl of how not to minister. Sorry just true.

Anonymous said...

"Right there [2 Thess. 2:15] is biblical proof that an unwritten tradition existed, but because of the sloppy nature of oral transmission, it must have consisted of very few and simple things like prayer facing east, the sign of the cross, and so forth"

Must have? There are two alternative explanations of that passage which make far better sense than your guesswork: (1) Paul is talking about a tradition of love and mutual pastoral care within the early Christian community; (2) Paul was writing before the gospels were written down and is referring to them at a time when they were an oral tradition.

"Ordination by laying on of hands is shown in Acts."

Apart from the passing on of the Holy Spirit in Acts 8, laying on of hands in the New Testament is consistently part of the commissioning of somebody for a godly task. That includes the making of episkopoi/presbyteroi, initially by a congregation's founding apostolos and then by the council of episkopoi/presbyteroi as they co-opted new persons onto the council. No passage suggests, however, that a congregation which suffered the martyrdom of all its episkopoi could not gather and decide in prayer and discussion amongst themselves who should be their replacements. No "magic baton" is passed on by the laying-on of hands that God cannot reconstitute, as your view of apostolic succession would imply. (An Anon said earlier that "The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession", but Williston Walker's scholarly History of the Christian Church says that it is clearest in the letter known as 1 Clement but even there ambiguous, and "was not widespread at the beginning of the second century", pointing out that Ignatius of Antioch, "convinced though he is of the necessity of strengthening the authority of bishop and presbytery, makes no effort to claim apostolic foundation for these offices. The full flowering of the idea of apostolic succession had to wait for the controversies of the later second century over Gnosticism.") But the main distinction that you insist on between ordained and unordained is the ministering of the sacraments, a profoundly unbiblical notion. In the NT the gifts of the Holy Spirit, rather than "the sacraments", constitute the supernatural element in the faith, and they are granted to Christians without regard to ordination or elevation to episkopos in the definitive passage 1 Cor 12.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

1. The Holy Spirit constitutes the supernatural in the sacraments also,
by definition a sacrament (not only The Eucharist) is a physical visible outward sign of an invisible inward grace.

2. the "magic baton" being in The Church at large, in the event of a decapitation of the physical organization the Church at large (laity) could correct the situation comparable to the worker bee larva getting Royal Jelly from workers when a queen dies. (I am not sure but I think a first day or so hatch worker might also be convertible into a queen this way but I might be wrong. The tradition of using bees wax candles might be a hint to in the event of such a thing, look closer at the lives of bees for instruction.)

3. yes, laying on of hands was for any purpose the person was set apart to do.

but that also in itself is an example of being moved from one condition (not assigned this work) to another condition (being the one to do this work, or part of the group sent to do it) which others have not been set apart to do.

4. While that interpretation of traditions as being the Gospels before they were written is all very well, there is a big problem. We have no reason to believe the Gospels were not written already by then.

The point about must have been few and simple because oral tradition is sloppy - well, you ever play telephone? get 10 people in a row, whisper a statement into one ear, and it is passed likewise till you hear it again from the end of the row.

It will usually be a bit modified.

Sure Tradition with a capital T is core faith, but given there is nothing in the short list of traditions you don't find spelled out in Scripture which contradict Scripture, and all embody some point in Scripture, and some have exorcistic power, which is an issue in such situations as they lived in, there is no reason to assume these are NOT referred to here by Paul.

That we know they did NOT include the sort of things RC considers they did is shown by the several centuries at least later origins of these "traditions" some of them a thousand or more years later.

St. Basil's list is very short, and consistent with what even the simple minded could retain, and which when being taught would be explained in terms of The Gospel and be mnemonics of it.

The three fingers up (The Trinity) two down (two natures of Christ) likely fits here also, though two up and three down would say the same message.

The very fact the hand in this position does not close all fingers into a fist, points to its antiquity.

Why?

Because this is what some doctors call "the papal blessing hand," what happens after severe carpal tunnel damage, you can't close the hand entirely when you try.

No one would have seen anyone like this since no one survived crucifixion, tied or nailed on, but One Who retained scars, came back to life.

Unbeknownst to its practicers, this hand gesture not only incorporates the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ doctrine, it incorporates the Resurrection as well.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

You live in California,,,, why don't you go outside in get a good walk in each day. You need some sun and also need to get your heart rate up for 30 minutes each day!!!! You need to get the lymph fluild circulating. This will help greatly with your depression. I know the bible says exercise profits little, but in that day folks had to be very physical in their day to day lives. Today we push buttons,,,,we don't even like to burden ourselves with walking to the mail box!!! We are a nation of lard asses!!!! Go to Walmart and see what has become of us. It is very sad!!!! There is a great big world out there on the other side of the door,,,,away from the freekin computer!!!!

Anonymous said...

Yes Christine. What reality are you hiding from?

Anonymous said...

Oh wait...keep that answer to yourself. we have heard enough about your unresolved life.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes we are a nation of lard asses.

but I don't have hardly any depression any more. Been off prozac except the occasional pill from a left over bottle if I have trouble sleeping and am tired, once or twice a month or less.

Even the St. john's wort gets rarely used.

I do some gardening in my yard now and then.

Anonymous said...

www.blacklisted news.com
May 20,2014 post
The Era of Chimeras

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 6:57 that is exactly a major reason I think the aliens originated as enhanced humans before The Flood who were offworld when The Flood hit earth and some other disaster hit Mars.

If we are doing it now, why couldn't it have been done before? If the angels are non reproducing then however solid they can get and grow being shape shifters equipment to have sex with, they would be sterile.

their putative children born of the women would then be transgenics that were desired as supersoldiers and other purposes.

democratization of technology is a modern phenomenon. In ancient times, technology however crude was mostly hogged for military, priestly deception and royal impressiveness purposes. DNA manipulation might be another case in point.

Anonymous said...

Constance,

There is no evidence for any intelligent material lifeforms anywhere other than on the earth. (I use "material" because as a Christian I believe that angels exist as the Bible says.) The post at 9:48pm immediately above is an example of New Age delusion on your anti-NA blog. Please put a stop to it.
Edi preach

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

nothng new age about it. and all alien life theories assume they ORIGINATED elsewhere. I say they originated here.

as for evidence, google Derrel Sims for starters, who does forensic investigations of this stuff, incl. the alien abduction thing, started out because of their going after him as a child, he got older and was always
capable of waking up and taking charge to some extent,

without going into details, he says the problem ended violently (for them), and he said nothing until years later he realized they had come for his son too.

then he started hunting them.

New Age is a whole way of dealing with stuff, incl. the earth itself. Delusion about gaia does not prove the earth doesn't exist.
Being concerned about pollution and GMOs and cruelty to animals does not require a New Age mindset of any kind.

my scenario is fit into a 6 literal day creationist scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7LJckka278 for starters.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

oh and by the way, about Yellowstone....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7LJckka278

Anonymous said...

No thank you Christine, I trust the mainstream scientists rather than you about intelligent life elsewhere.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

trust who you please. But if these things land publically and present real solid evidence for some connection between them and us, and claim they designed us, nd the mainstream scientists are going along with it and saying the aliens designed us from monkeys and guided our evolution, and we should pay attention to them, remember what I said.

The aliens didn't make us, we made them.

Craig said...

Susanna, re: your comment @ 7:05PM (8th post down),

Sorry for responding so late. I shall also respond to your much earlier post re: Aramaic Matthew, as well. First, your most recent one.

The way I read the Tertullian quote it is merely stating that the true catholic (not “C”) Church is one that has been passed down via the ‘tradition’ (not necessarily “T”) of the historic Jesus Christ and historic Christianity, i.e., proper Christian teaching in all its entirety. Of necessity, this includes only teaching derived from the Scriptures - which Tertullian (though he himself fell into error for a time), Irenaeus, etc. defended apart from any sort of RCC authority, i.e., they didn’t cite Pope Eleutherius, Pope St. Victor I, etc., or even a local ‘Bishop’ as the basis of their authority for speaking out. Their ultimate source was Scripture in their fight against the false teachings that abounded in the 2nd century.

The RCC may assert that today’s Bishops have a direct line back to apostolic churches, as established by the original Apostles, yet for the RCC claim of “apostolic succession” to be literally true, I’d think there should be direct lineage from, e.g., the “chair of Matthias,” the “chair of Philip,” etc., with today’s Bishops recognized as having authority over these churches/regions. Moreover, these 11 should be recognized as such by the Pope, and they should confer regularly with the Pope as a group of 12. Otherwise, the whole idea falls apart, to my way of thinking.

There is a quite well done essay on the early Christian apostle, well worth reading for the RCC adherent, Protestant, EO, etc. in Schneemelcher’s 2nd volume of New Testament Apocrypha titled “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition” by Wolfgang A. Bienert.

Now, going back to an Aramaic Matthew priority view. I have to admit that I was totally unaware of such a thing. From what I can see there is not strong proof for it, though it seems possible (I remain skeptical, see below). Most scholars believe that Jesus taught in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Koine Greek. There is certainly some Aramaic in the Scriptures, as you stated, with K/Cephas used elsewhere (though curiously not at all in Matthew like in John, e.g. John 1:42 with both Cephas and Peter used). In addition, interestingly, the word “Messiah” for John 1:41 and 4:25 is actually transliterated into Greek from the Aramaic (Μεσσίας, Messias) and not the Hebrew (Mashiach) – something I discovered a few years ago.

[cont]

Craig said...

[cont]

This issue is discussed implicitly a bit throughout Stanley E. Porter’s Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice ((Studies in Biblical Greek 6), New York: Peter Lang, 1996), in various individual essays authored by Porter. Unfortunately, this series as a whole, is not very accessible (it alternates between being somewhat technical and very technical) and pricey. In one essay, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek,” Porter concludes that the highly complex syntax of Matthew 16:19 indicates originality, with Porter adding that it is “quite possibly by Jesus himself” (p 169) i.e. a direct quotation of Jesus, rather than the presumed paraphrasing in the Gospels – there’s a recognized difficulty in recalling another’s words verbatim 20+ years later, hence the differences in Synoptic parallel passages.

HOWEVER, the Greek of Matthew 16:18 is best exegeted as Peter being the “foundation.” Quoting Porter:

…While some scholars would argue that the word-play does not work well in Greek because two different Greek words are used rather than simply citing the statement of an Aramaic original [ED: here Porter is not arguing against Matthew being written solely in Aramaic, but whether this particular passage was originally spoken in Greek rather than Aramaic], the use of cognate forms (possibly indicating paronomasia [ED: pun]) points to the importance of Greek formulation. According to this reasoning, the use of Πέτρος (Petros), a masculine noun, and the name given to Simon…is frequently in Greek literature understood to mean a simple “stone”….πέτρᾳ (petra), a feminine noun and inappropriate as a man’s name, of is used to refer to a mass of rock…Jesus thus says, “You are Πέτρος (a name for an individual male and single stone) and upon this πέτρᾳ (firm foundation of stone) I intend to build my church.” This accounts well for the alternation of Greek words, unnecessary if it merely translates the same Aramaic word, and it accommodates general Greek usage of the two words as well… (pp 167-168).

In a separate essay in this same volume, “Vague Verbs, Periphrastics and Matthew 16:19,” he borrows most of the words above, adding, …Despite the alternation of terms, however, it seems clear from the parallelism that Jesus intends to found his church upon Peter himself, though early exegetes, as well as a few more recent ones, have argued for such things as Peter’s confession, Peter’s faith, or even Christ himself (pp 105-106). In his conclusion Porter states, …Peter’s role in the formation of the church, while certainly significant, cannot be institutionalized on the basis of this passage alone, but rather points to a primary though not exclusive function… Porter concludes with an assertion to consider, and properly untangle, the difficult syntax of Matthew 16:19 in one’s analysis, which I’ll not quote here due to its very technical nature, and my own inability to explain this well to those who haven’t studied this.

Anonymous said...

"trust who you please. But if these things land publically and present real solid evidence for some connection between them and us, and claim they designed us, nd the mainstream scientists are going along with it and saying the aliens designed us from monkeys and guided our evolution, and we should pay attention to them, remember what I said."

Will do. IF...

Susanna said...

Dear Craig,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

First of all, Craig, as always, please know that I understand the fact that we do not agree on the Christian Rule of Faith or our respective ecclesiologies. My purpose here is simply to explain in a respectful way why Catholics believe what they believe about same.

That said, I would like to point out that you have made a very astute observation.

Re your comment: The RCC may assert that today’s Bishops have a direct line back to apostolic churches, as established by the original Apostles, yet for the RCC claim of “apostolic succession” to be literally true, I’d think there should be direct lineage from, e.g., the “chair of Matthias,” the “chair of Philip,” etc., with today’s Bishops recognized as having authority over these churches/regions. Moreover, these 11 should be recognized as such by the Pope, and they should confer regularly with the Pope as a group of 12. Otherwise, the whole idea falls apart, to my way of thinking.

FYI, There originally WAS a direct lineage to each apostle and the sees they founded. In fact, we have the traditional accounts of each of their martyrdoms except for St. John the Evangelist who was exiled to Patmos because the Romans couldn't kill him when they attempted to boil him in oil. But as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors.


Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century.


The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction.


cont.

Susanna said...

cont.

The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
_____________________

Also.....

The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must prove •that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate;
•that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church.

As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome;

•Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece,

•Irenaeus for Gaul,

•Clement and Origen for Alexandria,

•Tertullian for Africa.

•In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim.

•No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
______________________________

Susanna said...

cont.

This is why today, because the only unbroken chain of apostolic succession can be traced to Rome and St. Peter, the Pope can call an Ecumenical Council independently of the bishops, but the bishops cannot call an Ecumenical Council independently of the Pope. Moreover, except for a grave emergency, the appointment of bishops cannot be done without the approval of the Pope. This is not merely a power grab on the part of the Pope. It is to guarantee that the bishops are within the apostolic succession since, for Catholics, Holy Orders is a Sacrament.

There is even a redundancy which has traditionally been built into the consecration rite itself by which several bishops must co-consecrate the appointed bishop in order to guarantee the validity of his consecration.

Re: Matthew's Gospel

From a Catholic point of view, in the absence of extant Aramaic texts the main reason we believe that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Aramaic is because the Church Fathers have told us they were. It was Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor who said that the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Aramaic. These Church Fathers were themselves disciples of the Apostles or the pupils of disciples of the Apostles. For example, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon and author of ADVERSUS HAERESES, was a hearer of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who, in turn, was a disciple of the Apostle St, John the Evangelist.

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew
___________________________

Here is an interesting article by a Catholic who became a Protestant and then came back to the Catholic Church after investigating Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession.

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/apostolic-succession.html
_____________________________

A new book has recently been published by former Protestant minister Scott Hahn.

Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700

http://www.amazon.com/Politicizing-Bible-Historical-Criticism-Secularization/dp/0824599039/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&keywords=Politicizing%20the%20bible&linkCode=ur2&qid=1373727217&sr=8-1&tag=musingsofaper-20

______________________________

The following is a review of Mr. Hahn's book.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE?

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=620
_______________________________

My mentioning Mr. Hahn's book is not intended as a criticism only of Protestants. Plenty of neo-modernist Catholic priests and theologians have been using and abusing the historico-critical method with a view to deploying Holy Writ in the service of their own agenda.

Hans Kung is but one example.

From a Cathoplic perspective,Hans Kung's "historico-critical method" is neither historical nor critical......especially where he cites the Scriptures in such a way as to place the divinity of Christ in doubt.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

scSusanna, an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession does not require the presence of a tomb, Apostles were all over the map, and successions from all those who founded churches, or came to a congregation of believers who had
no structure yet, and gave them a bishop.


The Church of Alexandria never stopped existing, the Coptic Alexandrian pope claims succession from Mark of course, but the ORTHODOX non monophysite Alexandrian Patriarchate, however small, continues to this day.

Likewise, ANTIOCH ALWAYS HAD TO THIS DAY an Orthodox succession of bishops, these churches coexist geographically with the heretical counterparts, who claim the same succession, but neither Alexandria nor Antioch, became solely monophysite or nestorian turf.

BUT ACCORDING TO RC STANDARDS, YOU CANNOT LOSE THE POWER OF PRIESTHOOD OR OF EPISCOPACY BY HERESY OR EXCOMMUNICATION, ONLY THE LEGITIMACY OF USING IT.

Therefore, by your own standards, an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession, which was in heretical hands for a time, would become valid again as soon as non heretical persons were consecrated by someone in that lineage,

This is only a problem for Old Catholic and related elements, because the heretical and Orthodox lineages existed side by side.

As the patriarchates developed, the other successions would be subsumed into them, because of their having consecrated many bishops, being the head bishop in each patriarchate geography who would approve a bishop and often appoint him.

Let's say you have a chain of consecrations going back to Paul, as in Ephesus, for instance, but Andrew was the one who appointed ergo consecrated (later it took three bishops to consecrate a bishop except in emergencies, perhaps a testimony to a sense of absence of full Apostolic equivalence of a bishop) Byzantium's first bishop.

Later on, the Patriarch of Constantinople(nee Byzantium) is approving and consecrating or sending an Andrew succession bishop to consecrate the new bishop of Ephesus.

Therefore Ephesus' succession would become that of Byzantium, i.e., of Andrew, instead of Paul.

Same everywhere else.

Antioch had Peter as its first bishop, and Rome was a congregation without much leadership in Paul's time, who in Romans 1:11 says "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;"

Clearly, whoever's preaching had won the people who won over the rest of those who became Christians in Rome by that time, IT WAS NOT PETER, he had not been there YET.

Probably still in Asia. Peter only got to Rome in the last two years of his life. This was after Paul's death, or his martyrdom would have been mentioned in Acts, which ends before Paul's death.

So Peter didn't bring the faith to Rome, it got there ahead of him and ahead of Paul.

But Peter either was the first bishop or APPOINTED the first bishop, either way it has Petrine succession.

WHY IF PETER WAS TO BE THE PHYSICAL HEAD OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH,

was he not bishop of Jerusalem? It is The Lord Jesus Christ's half brother or first cousin (often called "brother" in middle eastern and middle eastern influenced cultures in europe to the confusion of a man who was friends with a guy from some part of central europe or maybe greece or italy I forget, who would call his cousins "brothers")

it was JAMES who was the first bishop, and though in the Council in Acts Peter is the spokesman, it is James who seems to run things.

NOTE TO THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE AUTHORITY OF EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

These are valid information sources being close to the times they wrote of, just like any historian of more recent times.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://www.saintgeorgekearney.com/apostolic_succession.html

Apostolic Succession of Antioch, now ruled out of Damascus which was always part of the Antiochian Patriarchate geography.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria

Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on the banking scandal and the Pope's right hand man?

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/bertone-bertone-bertone-34206/

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

re latest Vatican scandal, I was going through some old papers of mine, and came across this note from an article somewhere.

Seems that on being made a cardinal, the man swears an oath to keep everything confidential that could reflect on the Vatican.

Of course this would be a carte blanche to pull bad stuff himself, since if everyone keeps their oath, he can't reflect badly on the Vatican either.

The rationale of course is, at least on the surface, that if people hear dirt about clergy they will lose faith in the church membership in which (regardless of actual personal belief and behavior apparently) is the only chance of salvation, so souls are at risk.

Seems to me that an undercurrent of knowledge will always percolate anyway, and that public house cleaning would do far more to instill or restore faith in the church than keeping things quiet.

Also of interest was something I came across, someone had seen Vatican paperwork, seems that several times a week or a month I forget which, paperwork comes across the pope's desk about priests performing black masses, aside from anything else.

I can only assume, that concern for the souls of the faithful who lose faith in the church, was an argument cooked up by closet satanists, and bought by more sincere but foolish clerics.

Quite possibly in the days of the more openly and gradiosely corrupt popes or just after them in the Renaissance.

This was a time of revival of Greco Roman art and culture, i.e., pagan art and culture, which may seem harmless but is a step in a long process that over generations produces more and more depravity and paganism.

paul said...

What ever happened to one post a day, Christine ?
You remember; Constance asked you to limit it to one of your hot air blasts per day and you said that you'd comply.
Right here on this page there are currently 50 comments, of which 25 are from you.
But I suppose that when someone is an EXPERT ON
EVERY SUBJECT, it's hard to hold back all the comments that pop into your head.

Anonymous said...

Ahem....Paul, you must remember it's her 'ministry'. Isn't this blog so blessed? Christine is doing God (and us) a favor. (do I laugh or cry now?)

Constance Cumbey said...

I've been in trial -- and going through 15 boxes of archive duplicates which the Uniiversity of Michigan generously returned to me. I'm about to go on air on
www.themicroeffect.com.

Please join by calling in at 888-747-1968 or the chatroom
chatroom.themicroeffect.com

See you there!

Constance

Anonymous said...

Global warming religion persecutes opposing viewpoints.

m.Spiegel.de/international/world/a-971003.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrer=http://www.rapture ready.com/rapnews_db.php

Anonymous said...

Babylonian's love their handlers.
Getting very near the 'final solution'.

apnews.myway.com/article/20140523/us-credit-cards-security-963a2c14ae.html

Anonymous said...

Stairway to Heaven

Is it Craig who knows much about rock n roll history? May find this interesting?

open scroll.blogspot.com
Thursday May 22, 2014 post

Anonymous said...

Christine is out working in the garden,,,,so I'm a gonna hog the blog now!!!! Ha Ha

Anonymous said...

http://herescope.blogspot.com/

Article of May 27, 2014. Can you spell i d o l a t r y ?

jd said...

Hello, Constance,
what a trek to get here,
for the route has been most circuitous, via youtube and the origination of the trek, a review of yours on Amazon.
So the comment unrelated to your post!
I was interested in the book by Angebert [out of print] which you say is to be found substantially in a series conveniently, of videos.
If you could take the time to give the gist of the title, as there are so many [ nonsensical ones] under the books rubric.
If not, no prob.
Have a good day.
J dAuria. giovannid259@aol.com. [thnx!]

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 260 of 260   Newer› Newest»