Monday, March 16, 2015
This was not Solana's brainchild in the 90's nor now for those of you caught up in the Solana hype.
There has been a push for a common European military since the 1950's.
There are certain circles that jump every time Solana blows his nose thereby furthering the legend or, the myth if you will.
While it is important to take notice when Solana pops up on the scene, I don't think it's important because he is pulling any strings as some would have you believe.
It's importance for me is, that every time Satan shakes the dust off him and brings him back out, you can be sure there is something really big going on behind the scenes that has nothing to do with Solana.
So, I say to all, keep watch indeed, just don't get caught up in the Solana hype. He is a red herring.
I must admit to being a Putin "follower" myself, as he is the one I'm keeping my eye on. (Although lately, it seems Satan has misplaced him, since he's not been seen in public for over a week now...)
Jeff Nyquist, who's writings most here are aware that I follow, has written a most excellent piece about Putin.
He may also be a red herring. But, he may also be the next Napoleon.
My favorite quote from the article:
"Today Vladimir expects us to believe that Obama has been plotting Russia’s destruction. Yes, that same Obama who sent the bust of Churchill back to England; that same Obama who detests Netanyahu. Yes, that Obama – the flexible negotiator set to give Iran the bomb and whose goal is “zero nukes” for America. Oh yes, that’s the man who is plotting Russia’s destruction. And do not doubt that this incredible stupid lie will be widely believed because millions have heard that the American military-industrial complex is on the move. What these millions do not see, and may never see, is that every dictator blames his victim for what the dictator is about to do; even as Napoleon blamed England for wishing to dominate Europe; even as Hitler blamed the Jews for trying to provoke a Second World War; even as the Communists blamed the West for igniting the Cold War. Whatever the dictator says his victim is planning to do, totalitarian psychology suggests the dictator is planning to do it himself!" (italics in original)
Link to article:
If war comes to Europe, it will be because Putin started it. Will the West defend itself? I guess we'll see.
Very interesting article. I think you are right to keep an eye on Mr. Putin.
Didn't I read somewhere that he is of Jewish descent somewhere along the line?
given the US shift from no first strike to do a first strike, and UK
preparing to a first strike on Russia, and this legislation
can you blame him?
The UK thing was discovered when somehow Internet data was routed through Ukraine with the UK MoD info in it and then Putin did his disappearing act (he's back).
probably spent the time trying to figure out what to do.
Obama has pursued policies that point to desire for regime change in Russia.
Paul Craig Roberts mentioned in the article should not be ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts " served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted
as a co-founder of Reaganomics." Not my only source. Roberts can be deceived, he thinks Muslim Brotherhood is a non radical charitable group (that's its front
and how it recruits fighters and agents), and accepts neo confederate redefinition of civil war from what it always was, to a definiton like a coup. This is done to pretend the
Civil War was not a civil war but a war of aggression by the north. But aside from these he seems solid mostly.
posting a link does not mean endorsement of everything in the article or anything else the author
wrote or whatever the publisher is into. It is a convenient for combining in one place things I
already know from elsewhere.
Now if Putin was ranting about Obama looking to destroy Russia before any of this, well, Nyquist might have a point. And I don't follow all this
well enough to know. But first Medvedev was assured that Lybia wouldn't be bombed but it was. Then
Kerry was caught flat out lying, I saw a video of Putin watching him and saying it was sad or something like
that. You can bet he started studying and by now is up to speed on all the stuff you and I and everyone here
complain about, and is worried about how it could impact Russia, just like
we are worried how it could impact us.
In a post on the previous blog post comments, I document that Dugin is not the big deal with Putin he is
thought to be, it is a very different person who is a big influence, and as I figured, the apparent similarities
were apparent, an overlap between very different agendas and motives on some points of action.
anon 10:05 am
if Putin is partly Jewish, so what? wither a misinterpretation of his support for Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin or from some antisemitic source who doesn't happen to like him. Henry Makow's page says this and uses a distorted photo to show a similarity between him and a Jew, ignoring that both slavs and east european Jews have slavic and turkic blood.
Very relevant point about how perpetrators often
accuse their victims of the very thing(s) which they,
(the perpetrators) , are guilty of. I've heard it also referred to as "primitive" by psychologists when it's
on a personal level.
It's sad how well it works time after time. Most
people wouldn't have the audacity to even dream of trying something so ridiculous, much less pull it off.
It's everyday stuff when you're a world leader.
What did I do to you to call for this
I don't need any tests, though I
apparently do have a pretty nasty parasite
problem at this comments section.
It's an ugly little bug that gets all inflamed
and spreads lies.
Paul, that's no way to talk about your special friend. Whenever anyone questions your position with your 'roommate' you get so defensive... Do you share a closet with him too?
Have any of you read any of Constance Cumbey's books? Source reference materials? Marilyn Ferguson, David Spangler, Mark Satin? What is all this arguing about? Putin??? What has Putin to do with the topic? Nothing!
The topic is Solana. Why is he the topic again? Because of his call for a European army. The article linked to at the top of this post has a Solana quote about how Europe must solve its problems by all parties mutually respecting each other.
Typical New Age blather. In their dreams of a New Age, new agers refuse to accept the record of history that disagreeing parties rarely agree to disagree for very long (especially when those parties are from different cultures which have a history of warring and fighting), and that "peace" is merely war by other means. War is a major thread in the tapestry of history.
So. Solana wants to have a European army. He must want such a thing for a reason, yes? Whatever the reason, I would assume it is related to European security.
Which brings us to Putin.
Putin has designs on Europe. You can bet your last dollar on that. From Nyquist and others, the best bets are on an invasion of the Baltic states. They do not like Russia at all. Neither does Poland. Russia (and Putin) know this. They know that to take Europe, these "impediments" must be neutralized at the outset.
So whenever you talk about European security, Putin must be taken into consideration.
Tell me. What do Marilyn Ferguson, David Spangler, and Mark Satin have to do with the very real threats to peace evolving right now and over the past 20 years or so? The world is marching to war, and only the West pretends that peace can still be had. We are experiencing the same thing that we experienced in the build-up to WW2.
I'm not saying they (Spangler, Satin, etc.) are not anything to be concerned about. There most certainly ARE hidden (well, exposed now, because of Constance's work and others) dangers in the New Age movement. But the only time Utopians and even new agers become a real concern is when they rise to power. Power, as in, controlling guns and bullets and weapons of war. Like Chairman Mao said, "All power flows from the barrel of a gun."
Hence, the concern about Solana calling for a European army, since it has been demonstrated that Solana has *some* tie-in to the New Agers. Personally, I see him as an "Anti-Napoleon", or a Jean-Luc Picard (for you Star Trek fans), who would rather talk and negotiate out of whatever nasty situation presents itself. Unfortunately, you can't negotiate with the dark empires of the East who are warriors and who want to see the Western nations stamped out forever. Why? Because they can. That's it in a nutshell, and it's Satanic!
But anyone familiar with what's going on "over there" on the continent cannot seriously talk about a European army and completely ignore Putin. For whatever future Europe has, I would say that Putin/Russia has a large role to play. I'm not so sure yet that Solana's role will equal that of Putin's. But they are both, I believe, intertwined in the historical tapestry that is about to be woven.
I hope I have somewhat answered your question "What has Putin to do with the topic?"
Reminds me of Luke 21:20. Not that far out there now is it?
Notwithstanding, unlike an American 'special forces' soldier or marine, which needs a Mickey D's on every corner, a British special forces soldier can survive on a tube of toothpaste, a few earthworms and his own urine for a month or more.
We have nukes and were the Russians to cross the line then be sure we'd use them!
Interestingly, even if Moscow is turned to a sea of glass, by the time that happens, a good portion of their population will probably be living in the underground cities they have built. They have long prepared for a nuclear war with the West, we have not.
More importantly, we need to study the world stage. We need to pay attention to more than just Solana or Benjamin Creme. Obviously, following events surrounding Israel is a must. How many see the inevitability of war between Iran and Israel? It must be prophecy in that case. It's only a matter of time.
Can we see the inevitability of a nuclear strike on the U.S. by Russia? Is it possible they could catch us asleep? A nuclear "Pearl Harbor" if you will.
Most important for Christians...keep making disciples of all nations. Lead others to the Ark of Salvation, which is found in the Cross. Others may watch for the Antichrist, I watch for Jesus.
Daniel when I stumbled on this:
Adam Clarke's commentary published in 1831 supports the interpretation that the little horn is Papal Rome by this comment "Among Protestant writers this is considered to be the popedom."
He stated that the 1260-year period should commence in 755, the year Pepin the Short actually invaded Lombard territory, resulting in the Pope's elevation from a subject of the Byzantine Empire to an independent head of state. The Donation of Pepin, which first occurred in 754 and again in 756 gave to the Pope temporal power of the Papal States. His time line, which began in 755 will end in 2015. But his introductory comments on Daniel 7 added 756 as an alternative commencement date  Based on this, commentators anticipate the end of the Papacy in 2016:
“As the date of the prevalence and reign of antichrist must, according to the principles here laid down, be fixed at A.D. 756, therefore the end of this period of his reign must be A.D. 756 added to 1260; equal to 2016, the year of the Christian era set by infinite wisdom for this long-prayed-for event. Amen and amen!"
just read Revelation about the antichrist. all this pope as antichrist
thing is just so much garbage, because he has never controlled buying and selling and never required anyone to put his name or title or the numeric
equivalent on their hand or forehead and worship him and only that way
be able to engage legally in trade.
The Vatican sits on ONE hill which is OUTSIDE the city limits both of old Rome and the present city.
And it is not Mystery Babylon the Great, but the name was a mystery, Babylon the Great. so the name is Babylon the Great.
And the issue that drove papal persecutions of protestants was not whether to worship Jesus or someone else, but whether you could connect to Jesus only through the church the alleged only body of Christ on earth and only Ark of salvation
Never mind the albigensians and bogomils their doctrines would have had them kicked out of any protestant church.
Furthermore, prior to the papacy arising, which didn't really get going in its claims until the late
800s and didn't get established until AD 1054, there was no appearance of the two witnesses, prophets who would call down fire on their enemies then get killed eventually
and then resurrect and ascend to heaven three days later. Revelation says this will happen first.
The trouble with protestants is that they think they are reading the Bible for themselves, but what they are doing is reading it as meaning only what various famous men have said it means.
Meanwhile, ecumenism and the emerging church is going whole hog in the other direction, ignoring such errors as it does have, and clinging to one
of those errors, contemplative prayer, which is not uniform to it but endemic in some of it.
You're a military strategist one second, and an
authority on eschatology and bible interpretation
the next. Of course you're also a physics genius,
(self taught), and an expert on wicca and chakras
as well as vampire feeding frenzies, and life on Mars.
How wonderful for you, dear.
I was only pointing out that that was the original
rally cry for Protestantism; the notion that the Pope was the antichrist. I didn't say I agreed with the quote, but just that it's an over thousand year old statement which concludes that 2016 would be
the end of the Papacy.
Pope Francis I figures he's got five years or less.
If the papacy, either in his person or a successor, is stil alive at the end of AD 2016, that should be the last nail in this coffin of pope is antichrist.
you merely did this and so - if you didn't think it a viable option you wouldn't have this without a major caveat.
Any eschatology or interpretation that does much more allegorizing or "spiritualizing" than Paul did (which is to say, very little almost none), is flawed, and has brought forth all kinds of heresies and cults, by the way.
In some places it is obvious that something is not entirely clear, in others it is real explicit and the interpretation given by the angel specifies hills as well as kings.
The usual argument identifying her with Rome, is the seven hills of Rome. A little geography check shows this is wrong.
The antichrist will arrise out of the ashes of the United States, not out of Europe or the middle east. That day is coming sooner than most believe.
Then you have a problem, Christine.
You are a prime example of the know-it-not.
Ye know not what spirit ye are of in other words.
instead of striking poses and semi quoting Bible at me why don't you explain why the Bible can't be trusted to explain anything without your help?
you are the one who doesn't know what spirit you are of. (and you don't get authority by saying "ye" instead of "you.")
to defend rejection of the Bible as main interpreter of itself, you don't
appeal to the Roman Magisterium, so
your motive is not RC. that leaves JW, Mormon (with its notions about
Jesus combined with its idea that you can become a god if you are male and create your own planets it is not
even in the category of Christianity) and maybe someone who is a hard core Calvinist (some Calvinist positions are close to
blasphemy) or maybe even an atheist or neopagan who has taken Hislop's
arguments to their logical conclusions that Hislop wouldn't, publicly at least, get to.
Basically I was just curious what your excuse is. I take a stand that is totally protestant compatible, and you reject that, so you are hung up
on traditions of men and have replaced the pope with Calvin or some of his downline?
"Basically I was just curious what your excuse is."
You are wrong on all counts but I'm not one bit curious as to why you get it so wrong a large share of the time on such a large share of the topics here.
Have a nice day being as wrong as you like (because ye-or you if you prefer-do not know what spirit ye/you are of.)
you on the other hand have nothing to work with or you would defend your rejection of the Bible.
"you on the other hand have nothing to work with or you would defend your rejection of the Bible."
I do not in any way reject the Bible. I reject your spin on it (and most other topics).
Have a nice day not figuring out what I did and did not say though.
Nearly 2000 years of Christian Bible studies,
theology and eschatology by St Augustine, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Francis of Assisi, up to Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Teresa of Avila, Charles Wesley, and such others as Isaac Newton and Copernicus, just to name a few, BUT, NONE OF THEIR WORKS are relevant or even legitimate any more, because we now have Mary Christine Erikson who instructs us to chuck all those old people out, and their work, in favor of "just compare scripture with scripture and let the Bible explain the Bible, without any outside influences", except for Ms Erikson herself presumably.
What a relief to know that there's no need to acquaint oneself with any of the above anymore !
Thank you Infowolf!
Oh and thanks for the five year time limit regarding Francis.
What is that, a prophesy Christine?
Are you a Prophetess too?
“I have the feeling that my pontificate will be brief: four or five years; I do not know, even two or three. Two have already passed. It is a somewhat vague sensation. Maybe it’s like the psychology of the gambler who convinces himself he will lose so he won’t be disappointed, and if he wins, is happy. I do not know. But I feel that the Lord has placed me here for a short time, and nothing more. … But it is a feeling. That’s why I always leave the possibility open.” http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03/13/pope-francis-want-go-pizza/
"I thin some people think anything that might be agin amurrica is ipso facto new world order aka new age."
The papacy of the Catholic Church began in the year 33 AD, when Jesus Christ Himself (before He was crucified and died for the sins of all mankind) decided to make one of His 12 apostles, Peter the very first Pope. As He founded the Catholic Church, Jesus spoke the following words: "And I say unto you, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
The UNBROKEN line of Popes happens to be historical fact - from St. Peter up through the present Pope Francis.
You are confusing HISTORICAL fact with matters of faith.
There is actually no HISTORICAL facts or information that Peter was in fact in Rome at the time you speak of. This is your faith and it may well be true. But it is NOT historical fact.
It is interesting though, that Paul authored more of the New Testament than did Peter, and all his letters began with greetings, those sent to Rome made ZERO mention of Peter being in Rome.
I would think someone of Peter's stature as the head of the church would most definitely be included in those greetings. Paul was still guiding and directing early Christians on proper behavior and worship according to the Word of Christ in his letters to ALL the churches, not just Rome.
His letters are dated well after 33 A.D. And that's a HISTORICAL fact.
If Peter was in Rome years before Paul wrote his letters, why was he not recognize Peter in any way? Why was there a need for Paul to minister to the early Christians if Peter was "the bishop of Rome?"
Your timeline puts Peter in Rome before Paul authored any of his letters. Funny how the man who wrote most of the New Testament, which is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD did not EVER recognize Peter as being in Rome at the time.
Paul also laid out proper behavior and etiquette for bishops of the church. He surely would not have stepped on Peter's toes in doing so had he (Peter) in fact been the bishop of Rome at the time.
Paul is the most "prolific" writer of the New Testament, when you include Hebrews (which is attributed to Pauline authorship but some doubt remains), than he is easily so.
Paul's letters are dated with various estimates but usually circa 50's A.D.
Paul verbally reprimanded Peter for being ashamed to associate with Gentiles and RIGHTFULLY so. Hardly something you would do or, need to do to the "bishop of Rome".
These are what you call HISTORICAL facts.
you have lost all credibility expressed sheer stupidity and a spirit devoid of all or any Christian merit when it comes to criticising Mary Christine Erikson.
You are a turncoat coward with about as many Christian bones in your body as she has. I suggest you both repent while there's still time and quickly! I for one would rejoice to learn your dead bones had been brought to life in Jesus Christ's Holy Name.
You both believe you can see and are clothed in linen white as snow yet it is clear to all that see you that you are blind, wandering like a pair of raving madmen in rags, wretched and in desperate need of a wash!
Oh, and what's this about your 'special friend'? find there's any fact in it, then I do hope you've repented
of such stomach churning sin! Repent the pair of you.
Salt stings but it also sanitises!
You have lost all credibility, expressed sheer stupidity, and demonstrated your spirit is devoid of all or any Christian merit when it comes to criticising Mary Christine Erikson.
You are a turncoat coward with about as many Christian bones in your body as she has. I suggest you both repent while there's still time and quickly!
I for one would rejoice to learn your dead bones had been brought to life in Jesus Christ's Holy Name.
You both believe you can see and are clothed in linen white as snow yet it is clear to all that see you that you are blind, wandering like a pair of raving madmen in rags, wretched, and both of you are in desperate need of a wash!
Oh, and what's this about your 'special friend'? If there's any fact in it, then I do hope you've repented
of such stomach churning sin!
Repent the pair of you.
Salt stings but it also sanitises!
as I recall Paul said he sublet to or co rented with someone he found out was gay and got rid of him as soon as possible. There was never any "special friend" perversion or whatever going on that he admitted or implied.
as usual you go over the line of criticizing facts to inventing them which is slander.
The Pope (Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας pappas,  a child's word for father)  is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.  The importance of the Roman bishop is largely derived from his role as the traditional successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built. The current pope is Francis, who was elected on 13 March 2013, succeeding Benedict XVI. 
The office of the Pope is the papacy. His ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Diocese of Rome, is often called "the Holy See"  or "the Apostolic See", the latter name being based upon the belief that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter the Apostle.  The pope is also head of state of Vatican City,  a sovereign city-state entirely enclaved within the Italian capital city of Rome.
The papacy is one of the most enduring institutions in the world and has had a prominent part in world history. 
Quite paranoid aren't you? I am not defending MCE, but what she says here is nothing against you (albeit barely legible: she's the literacy of a tree surgeon, eh!)!
At least I rallied to expose her on matters of substance. Yours is vacuous and self-absorbed, as is your 'character' or lack of it. You are more vacant than a Detroit estate agency's showroom and about as altruistic as Narcissus!
I wouldn't be surprised if you are sat there with your tinfoil hat and a rusty old rifle left over from the civil war. You put the hick into hillbilly. You and Critine deserve each other!
Salt stings but it also sanitises!
even if you can argue that the supremacy, which is not the same as primacy in Greek which is the language orginally of the Church and the language which God saw fit to be the common tongue second language of all when Christ came, and which God willed to have the New Testament written in,
Rome had NO CHRISTIANS when Peter got that mission,
and Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome,
so if Peter was the issue, instead of mirroring the world in the Church as is made clear in the history given in Chalcedon canon 28, THEN ANTIOCH IS THE PROPER HEAD CHURCH AND NOT ROME.
Peter and Paul got into Rome at the last minute, when Christianity was already there, and gave them a bishop, that's all. Rome was the only Apostolically established (given a bishop by an Apostle instead of by another church's bishops) see in the west, so became a big deal in the west, but Apostolic sees (founded by Apostles or first bishops appointed by Apostles) were a dime a dozen in the east.
Western Europe is not the whole world.
Before you decide to put your foot in your mouth again, maybe it would be "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
"Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level, and then beat you with experience."
Yes, Christine would literally argue with Jesus Christ . . . and in this case, is doing exactly that when she denies that Jesus Christ made Peter the first Pope of HIS Catholic Church.
(Almost too funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.)
it is you who are showing yourselves to be ignorant fools and YOU WHO ARE ARGUING WITH CHRIST.
you have been told lies, accepted them because they made you feel strong and proud and certain without checking the historic and biblical facts (which include that the church was founded in the one off situation of Peter's preaching, which fulfills in itself the whole prophecy and that Christ gave the same power of binding and loosing to the church at large in Matthew in dealing with sinners taken before the congregation).
I don't speak as inheritor of a tradition I am blindly loyal to. I had no dog in this RC vs. EO fight when I did the research and chose EO. and I was originally an ignorant fool who bought the Hislop type of anti RC (ergo in some points anti EO though I didn't know about them) arguments decades before that.
Frank, you, on the other hand, are out of line because your words are terribly ungracious, (and Paul had clarified the situation to his credit and what he learned from it) because your response toward him quite targeted and personally hateful. And not worthy to be printed alongside the Lord's name.
Why do you find this behavior towards him necessary? And when you did that to Christine too, why? We must all avoid the bitter root that disqualifies us from the faith. Please don't let that be you.
You and I will meet you on 'the other side of the veil' where the TRUTH will come out.
I'm not scared of you Paul, don't worry. I do however sincerely hope you repent and get some helpful prayer to deny your urges.
Salt stings but it also sanitises!
"ANYONE can add info to wiki."
Actually, there are too many sources to mention which lists the complete UNBROKEN history of the Catholic Popes from Peter in 33 AD to Francis I in 2013.
Nice try though . . .
indeed the truth will come out and you will be surprised.
The list of popes, the term was first used by the bishop of Alexandria by the way, is not contested. IT IS IRRELEVANT.
The list of bishops of Antioch also begins with Peter, before he stopped briefly in Rome to be martyred.
SUBMIT TO ANTIOCH then.
you are false slandering a brother in Christ (assuming you are even in Christ) and you are sinning in TWO ways, your bad attitude and your LIES.
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES? click on the number after a statement and you are put on the cite itself.
This is what you should do with ANY book or Internet article.
My information on Orthodoxy and the lists of bishops back to Apostles for the Patriarchates including ANTIOCH which Peter was the first bishop of BEFORE he was bishop of Rome, is not based on wikipedia. The list of bishops of all the patriarchates, incl. what used to be the Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome before it went into schism and heresy and disobeyed the canons against eating meat with blood added or not taken out at all, and started fasting on Saturdays against all tradition, can be found, sometimes on the same page, online.
Like I say . . . continue to argue with Jesus Christ. (I would advise you not to stand outside in the rain during a lightning storm though.)
Yes, Peter was martyred . . . and your point is??? He asked to be crucified upside down, as he felt that he wasn't worthy to die in the same way as his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Show us any HISTORICAL evidence that Peter was in Rome from 33AD as Pope. Not what your church teaches you, but actual historical evidence.
Tell us why Paul never acknowledged him being there or the bishop of Rome through all his letters, imprisonments etc.
Tell us why the bishop of Rome was verbally spanked by Paul in public having to be shown the right way to minister.
NICE TRY THOUGH!!
Attractive Deception - Part 7
'The Hats of Satanic Dominion'
Paul and Peter both arrived AFTER Christianity was there, but there was no consecrated bishop for them so Peter appointed the first bishop, there is some dispute as to whether he was the first bishop or merely appointed the first bishop who is usually listed as second bishop.
of course in your deceptive way, you try to make it look like I was trying to make a point about his being martyred (I was giving the whole history) instead of what I was saying, that he had nothing to do with Christianity coming to Rome.
AND ANTIOCH IS WHERE HE WAS THE FIRST BISHOP AND ANTIOCH WHERE WE WERE FIRST CALLED CHRISTIANS.
Of course you never address that.
SUBMIT TO ANTIOCH IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO BE UNDER A PETRINE LINEAGE.
All the patriarchates were petrine directly or indirectly. Antioch and Rome, Peter. Alexandria, Mark Peter's literal or figurative son. Byzantium, Andrew Peter's brother appointed its first bishop on his way through to Thrace on his way to Scythia. Jerusalem, first bishop was James, but Peter's preaching started it. JERUSALEM IS THE MOTHER CHURCH NOT ROME. Jerusalem was Christian before ANY city.
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)
It is an indisputably established HISTORICAL FACT that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
If anyone is a liar not in Jesus Christ it is you Mary Chritine Erikson, oh New Age magic loving fornicator with a 'recovering' yet unrepentant devil worshipper and possessed with lying spirits of clairvoyancy!
Boy that plank in your eye must be painful. You blind wretched devil.
Salt stings but it also sanitises.
Jesus told him he would be taken against his will to die somewhere. John 21:18,19. This would support his presence in Rome being by duress, which would not prevent his preaching while imprisoned.
Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;" THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN APOSTLE AS BISHOP, OR WHO HAS EVEN VISITED YET.
Peter didn't introduce Christianity to Rome, neither did Paul, whose reference to not building on another's work, therefore, would refer to missionaries other than Apostolic, who did not have the authority to consecrate a bishop.
In spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles was later confirmed by Jesus, and his precedence was not less conspicuous after the Resurrection than before. The women, who were the first to find Christ's tomb empty, received from the angel a special message for Peter (Mark 16:7). To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day after the Resurrection (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of Genesareth, Christ renewed to Peter His special commission to feed and defend His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his Master (John 21:15-17). In conclusion Christ foretold the violent death Peter would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner (John 21:20-23). Thus was Peter called and trained for the Apostleship and clothed with the primacy of the Apostles, which he exercised in a most unequivocal manner after Christ's Ascension into Heaven.
Peter was bishop in Antioch BEFORE he was in Rome.
SUBMIT TO ANTIOCH OR JERUSALEM PATRIARCHATES and repent of the Roman deception!
Jesus said to Peter: "And I say unto you, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
Was Peter ever in Rome?
And, oh by the way - every Pope is ALSO referred to with the title of 'BISHOP.'
Have fun arguing with yourself (and Jesus Christ).
Church means assembly, and while this has formal connotations, a mechanistic structure is not one of them.
WHY DOES CHALCEDON 28 REHASH A HISTORY THAT DOESN'T MENTION PETER ONLY STATUS OF ROME IN THE WORLD AS WHY IT HAD FIRST AMONG EQUALS STATUS WHICH IS ALL PRIMACY MEANS?
PETER FOUNDED THE CHURCH BY HIS PREACHING IN JERUSALEM, WHY DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE A THING ABOUT ROME?
proof of Peter in Rome doesn't make Rome supreme regardless of pretensions and flattery in early times even, and these pretensions were not even being claimed by Roman bishops for centuries.
ASK YOURSELF, WHY DID IT TAKE THREE DAYS OF EVALUATION OF THE TOME OF LEO BEFORE IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED, TO MAKE SURE IT FIT THE UNIVERSAL (CATHOLIC) CHURCH TEACHING OF THE EAST?
Enjoy talking to yourself. You do that with everyone on this blog anyway. You are simply not worth getting into a 'debate' (and with you, I use that term loosely) on ANY subject.
very closely allied with the man of sin
and that he actually has been effected by
and delayed by as subtle forces as this
website, and others like it, and that cherreiah
law is probably taking over the Algoreithm as we
speak and that franknfrends are all of that
elk, stopping by, just to be negative and nasty
on a regular basis exactly like an anti-religion would do rather than pray to the
Yes I said elk.
I notice that this Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum
combo get really twisted up about any talk of
That is to say that there's a reason why TDee and
TDum are obviously hostile to the basic premise of this blog as well as the comments.
Why would anyone even care, much less spend so much energy on slander, etc.?
a often capitalized: of, relating to, or forming the church universal
b often capitalized: of, relating to, or forming the ancient UNDIVIDED* Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
c capitalized: Roman Catholic
*UNDIVIDED (e.g. as in BEFORE Martin Luther, King Henry VIII, and others took the Church, which Jesus Christ founded, in a whole OTHER direction).
he knows all the right things to say in order to pass
himself off as a Christian.
He's just unable to actually be a Christian and so he
never really sounds like one despite the arrogant
notion that Christians are easy to mimic, as well as fake out.
It is true that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple and pure and that a child can truly take hold of it. But it's
nearly impossible to fake the fruit of the Holy Spirit,
which is peace, joy, love, forgiveness and grace.
"*UNDIVIDED (e.g. as in BEFORE Martin Luther, King Henry VIII, and others took the Church, which Jesus Christ founded, in a whole OTHER direction). "
NO. the term refers to the schism of Rome from the rest of the Church in AD 1054.
It is only in the 20th century that the protestants have been considered "church" enough to talk about them being part of a divided church as distinct from outside the Ark of Salvation and doomed to hell.
Just to clarify something here, there is actually no question about Paul's sexuality except that which has been invented by a few trolls in ordewr to discredit and humiliate Paul.
If I remember correctly, during a discussion, Paul happened to mention here on the blog that he either roomed with someone or offered someone a place to stay without knowing that the person was a homosexual. Certain individuals on this blog have been swooping down on him like vultures ever since.
How does this call Paul's sexuality into question?
I think the motives of the vultures are more to be called into question than Paul's sexuality.
A friend of mine who is a psychiatrist once told me "If you want to find out what someone is really like, pay attention to what he accuses other people of doing."
Of course, long before my psychiatrist friend said this, the Bible reports Christ as saying, "Judge not lest you be judged likewise." Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37
nearly impossible to fake the fruit of the Holy Spirit,
which is peace, joy, love, forgiveness and grace."
Such a pity you've denied this for so long Saul. The first part of your comment is you to a T! T for Tweedle Dummer Aka Mary Chritine Erikson and Tweedle Dumbest (yes, that's you Saul)!
Salt stings but it also sanitises!
However, it still begs the question of why did Paul bring up the point about his friend in the first place if it wasn't simply and act of transference? Was something hinted at that was a bit too close to the bone?
By the way, how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light Bulb?
It all depends if the light bulb wants to change of course!
the majority of homosexuals aren't flaming faggots, many are he-man sorts some of these are bisexual.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
In fact, William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Roman Empire.
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
When Tertullian says "where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord," he is referring to Peter being crucified - albeit upside down at his request because he did not feel himself worthy to suffer crucifixion exactly as Christ did.
The claim that “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Lastly, there is the archaeological evidence.
It was during the reign of Pope Paul VI that evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there.
The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
What matter is that Peter WAS FIRST BISHOP OF ANTIOCH ALSO, BEFORE HE WAS IN ROME.
That puts Antioch ahead of Rome.
Guess why Rome got primacy? go read Chalcedon canon 28. Nothing to do with Peter, and it was on the basis that even as Rome was first city of the empire so should be first city of the Church, likewise Constantinople being second city of the empire should be second city of the Church,
which at first Rome opposed because it sided with Alexandria who didn't want to be bumped down a notch in honor, but eventually Rome agreed.
Didn't matter, it was outvoted anyway.
canon 28 also says THE FATHERS gave this status to Rome, not Jesus and not Peter.
NO ONE SAYS PETER BROUGHT CHRISTIANITY TO ROME. Even Paul didn't do that, converts brought Christianity to Rome, and Apostles eventually got there and gave them a bishop. Probably Peter himself briefly until he was martyred.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. ROME NEVER HAD PRIMACY ON ACCOUNT OF PETER.
honorable mention re Peter but not status from him.
The Faith of Peter was the faith of the whole Church, incl. Rome, and to make sure Rome was still in that faith, The Tome of Leo was inspected for three days NOT ACCEPTED AT ONCE BUT FIRST TESTED AGAINST ST. CYRIL'S THEOLOGY to make sure it was Orthodox,
only then was Leo's Tome accepted and promulgated at the council of Chalcedon.
Occasionally, certain technologies experiment and test the boundaries of what is to come. Acceptance by early adopters is often the catalyst to motivate the masses, as long as other factors such as economics and barriers to entry are also in place. Implantable technology and Radio-frequency Identification (RFID) are two components of the Internet of Everything (the interface of our things with data, people and process) that are frontrunners in testing the waters of wearable technology.
Implantable technology, also called "embeddables," is a sub-class of objects that can be inserted directly into the human body to modify, enhance or heal in ways that non-embedded devices cannot.
Remember, the "hour of temptation" was to come upon all that dwell upon the Earth "like a snare" -- this is looking frighteningly close.
In defense of the Peter at Rome theories -- it is tradition as I understand it that he was executed in Rome. Further, Rome was the capital of the civilized world at that time and taking it for the Church after the many years that it had persecuted Christians under pagan emperors must have made it desirable. Maybe Susanna can shed more informed light on this than I -- my schools didn't have Latin offerings and consequently the Roman history we received in the small Indiana school where I graduated from high school didn't have as many offerings on the old Roman culture and emperor as those that did.
Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome, so on that theory Antioch should be the one true head of the church. RC twists things, if they read some talk about the faith of Peter they think Rome defines it, in fact it is the shared faith of all the churches and if Rome goes astray it has gone astray, it can't redefine it.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
And that papal succession was unbroken....from Peter all the way up through Pope Francis I in 2013 AD.
"The Catholic Church...Saint Peter and the Popes who have descended in unbroken succession from him have never ceased to feed, with the life-giving Sacraments and doctrines of the Catholic Church, the sheep whom Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd" (History Of The Popes © 1965)
"Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope," (The Early Church © 1945)
"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)
"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)
I'm not gay and never have been.
And to be called that by this frank character
is not too surprising considering his posts.
Again Frankie, the fruit of the Spirit of the living
God is pretty much the opposite of anything and everything you posted so far.
You do have awesome keyboard courage though.
Maybe someday we can meet up and you can repeat some of the things you've spewed here
Wouldn't that be fun?
Personally and just as a guess, I'm thinking that you are a muslim, no ?
and the Apostollic succession from Peter in antioch among the non heretical is unbroken to now.
And the Apostolic succession from Mark, appointed by Peter, in the non heretical Alexandrian Orthodox Patriarchate is unbroken to now.
And the Apostolic succession from Andrew, Peter's brother, in Byzantium aka Constantinople aka Istanbul is unbroken to now. (some contest the Andrew story, but he had to pass through there to get from the Middle East to Thrace on his way to Scythia modern Russia).
And the Apostolic succession from James is unbroken in the Greek Orthodox Jerusalem Patriachate to now.
The Protestant Reformation was not really a reform. It was rather a revolution. It tore entire kingdoms from the Catholic Church, and introduced quite new ideas of the religious relationship between Christians and Christ.
We must remember that, during the century preceding the Reformation, the Renaissance had brought the revival of the pagan Greek and Latin classics, and these not only diverted men's minds from the study of Catholic philosophy, but led to corruption of life amongst the educated classes.
In the words of Protestant Rev. Dr. Goudge, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. In a plea for a better understanding between Protestants and Catholics, he begs us to drop the prejudices of the sixteenth century when the Reformation occurred. "The whole spirit of the controversies," he writes, "was wrong. They were black with hatred and misrepresentation, and largely conducted in theological Billingsgate . . . If we base our statements upon sixteenth century sources, we generally base them upon poisoned sources. At best they leave out half the truth and at worst they are lying."
if I give a big picture lecture I am rambling. If I stick to one point I am diversionary.
Martin Luther didn't break away and found his own church, he attempted reform, but was kicked out and his followers were called "Lutherans" much to his displeasure and the name stuck.
The serious heresies of protestantism are the fault of Calvin and Zwingli. As one writer recently pointed out, Calvinism teaches blasphemy in its double predestination, undermining the faith of many who fear that regardless of their accepting Jesus Christ and serving Him devotedly they may be among those predestined to damnation anyway.
Luther held the Virgin Mary in great esteem, and did NOT deny the literal presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, though he figured some real bread and wine remained. Calvin figured he hadn't gone far enough, and the heresies and blasphemies of protestantism can be laid at his door, because his doctrines have infected protestantism regardless of denomination, and even Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, ergo "high church" and "low church," the latter more calvinized.
Luther did open the door to this by denying free will or that it operated very much.
And you RC can blame this whole mess on Augustine, whose overreaction to Pelagianism laid the groundwork for Calvinism. Augustine's claim to fame was his fighting against Pelagianism, which denied original sin and claimed that our will is free and unfettered enough by original sin influence that it is possible for man to do good and think right and choose right all his life and need no Savior (though I suppose he admitted most would need Jesus as Savior), and Augustine's excellent attacks on paganism. There are several problems about Augustine I won't spend time here on. The Greek fathers who appreciated his anti Pelagian work, and said his writings were good for doctrine, were not that well acquainted with them, or perhaps the worst came later. Neither was Augustine that versed in Greek. The infamous position of marital sex only being for reproduction, originates with his idea that a wife married for love and desire is but a legal prostitute, contradicting Paul who specifies exactly that marriage is to prevent fornication, i.e., it is for love and desire to have an outlet.
Cross fertilization between east and west infected Orthodoxy with some similar ideas at times.
YES the Renaissance laid the groundwork for things going wrong.
unfortunately, the links to the segments only point to prior articles, so use this to get to 1, back to 29 and then 2, etc. or read as you please.
First of all, in 1 Peter, the mention of “Babylon” in 5:13 is fairly reliable evidence that Peter resided at some time in the capital city of Rome which was referred to in the New Testament by its code name "Babylon."
Even if one does not accept the papacy, it is historically indisputable that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there with St. Paul.
As one "anonymous" here - especially at 2:50 P.M. - has already pointed out, other historical evidence that Peter was in Rome is to be found in the writings of the Church Fathers who were closest to the Apostles.
For example, to repeat Anonymous at 1:21 A.M. Ignatius of Antioch says in his Letter to the Romans:
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
Here Ignatius is referring to his arrest in Antioch and subsequent journey in chains to Rome where he was imprisoned before being put to death by Emperor Trajan who ordered him to be fed to wild beasts as a spectacle for the people.
Now if, as is believed, Peter died around 67 or 68 A.D., then Ignatius of Antioch wrote this letter only a little over forty years later.
Oh, and by the way, there is evidence that
IT WAS ST. PETER WHO APPOINTED IGNATIUS TO THE SEE OF ANTIOCH!
(See: Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) )
St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon Ignatius the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves (See: "Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587).
Another Church Father is Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
There follow many other Church Fathers who refer to Peter's Roman residency - Irenaeus, Gaius, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Eusebius of Caesaria, Peter of Alexandria, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Epiphanius of Salamis - just to name a few.
Epiphanius of Salamis who was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus at the end of the 4th century is considered a Saint and a Church Father by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Panarion a.k.a. "Medicine Chest Against All Heresies" 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
The "Panarion" furnishes very valuable information concerning the religious history of the fourth century.
By the way, in 2010, archaeologists found evidence of Peter's prison where he was held before being crucified by Nero.
(See: Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) )"
DUH! exactly, because PETER WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ANTIOCH and when he decided to leave, he appointed his successor!
Before he ever set foot in Rome!
Re: However, it still begs the question of why did Paul bring up the point about his friend in the first place if it wasn't simply and act of transference?
The only question I see being "begged" is what might be the motive on the part of an "accuser of the brethren"
And the only so-called "tranferrence" I am seeing here is on the part of whoever is insinuating that Paul - someone they don't even know, by the way - might be gay because he charitably albeit unknowingly offered someone a place to stay.
Maybe the reason why Paul brought it up in the first place was to make the cautionary point that since it is not always possible to know if a person is gay or straight, we need to be prudent as well as charitable.
When will you understand that the issue here is not about either Antioch or Rome? The issue is that Peter was appointed the FIRST POPE and Head of the Catholic Church BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF in 33 AD . . . period (end of subject).
Jesus does not go by your 'rules' of WHERE you think Peter should have gone from there!!!
I am finished discussing this with you.
It is you who are trying to make Jesus go by YOUR rules!
Peter surrendered his episcopate to another during his lifetime, both at Antioch AND AT ROME. Peter was not the bishop of Rome when he died, according to your own history.
The authority of St. Peter in the early Church is clearly recorded in the Bible.
After the resurrection, St. Peter was the first apostle to enter the empty tomb (St. Luke 24:12) and the first apostle to whom the risen Lord appeared (Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5). St. Peter presided over the selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas (Acts of the Apostles 1:15-26). He was the first to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:14) and proclaimed the Church’s faith before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8-12).
He is the first to work a public miracle (Acts 3:1-12) and the sick were brought into the street so that his shadow might fall upon them (Acts 5:15).
Jesus didn't appoint Peter pope because the term wasn't in use.
And you wouldn't be making an issue about it unless you were backing Rome as supreme. Antioch is an issue, because it is just as petrine as Rome, which shoots down Rome's claim to a petrine from Jesus based supremacy over all Christians.
"the faith of Peter" is the faith of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Jerusalem, and was the faith of Rome before you guys tweaked it a bit though you still have enough of it to have good Holy Water and Eucharistic miracles after your schism from us, despite the filioque and the excess about Mary and the misconception of the woman instead of her seed being the one that crushes the serpent's head.
That was a mistranslation by Jerome, and is not found in LXX or Masoretic. On it is based a plethora of tradition that is fed by dubious visions that increasingly teach a focus on Mary rather than Jesus, a notion of an age of Mary before the Second Coming, and even the Mary as coredemptrix heresy which would make her the fourth person of The Holy Trinity.
Peter was NOT bishop of Rome when he died BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY APPOINTED LINUS TO BE BISHOP!
Just as in Antioch he surrendered his episcopate to another before he moved on, in Rome he surrendered his episcopate to another before he died.
"The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) THEY GAVE OVER THE EXERCISE OF THE EPISCOPAL OFFICE TO LINUS." my emphasis.
note: "THEY GAVE OVER" the office to Linus. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm
So Peter surrendered his episcopate to Linus, and Peter therefore WAS NOT BISHOP OF ROME WHEN HE DIED.
the same Newadvent article says Irenaus' information being drawn from a more recent to him and Roman source is more reliable than what Tertullian said.
Your argument is not with me; it's with the words of Jesus who said, "And I say unto you, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it." (Matthew 16-18)
I WILL PRAY FOR YOU.
Yes, it was just as you said it.
My view on the Protestant Reformation
is very limited, but mostly derived from
the story of Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons", by R. Bolt, as well as a bio of Thomas More by Peter Ackroyd.
I've been under the impression that those events
had a lot to do with the Reformation, but now I'm
not so sure.
One thing is for sure; the internet is loaded to the gills with Catholic bashing.
I wish more Protestants would consider the fact that Islamists hate the universal church, aka the catholic church. They've made numerous threats
that they intend to attack Rome and soon, and
they don't ask their victims if they're Catholic or Protestant. they just torture, rape and behead
any and all of them.
The devil spends most of his energy on the LEADERS of the people, just as it was in Jesus' day.
"Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?
The KINGS of the earth set themselves, and the
RULERS take council together, against the Lord and against his anointed..."
There were seven churches in Asia. The Bible says that they were the seven spirits of God. They are all
spirits that testify to Jesus the Son of God.
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy.
You got the same impression of Paul's response regarding that situation that I got. I thought Paul made himself clear about his stance on that issue. Disagreeing is one thing but being disagreeable is quite another.
The enemy is the enemy not our brothers and sisters in the Lord. I have that burden on myself to remember that also.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IRENAEUS SAID, it is merely what is convenient for Newadvent as a Roman partisan to say he said.
Linus' episcopate of course would date from the same year as Peter's death, because he would have been appointed before Peter died, either in anticipation of martyrdom or anticipation of leaving. this would have happened close to either event.
But Irenaeus' words are that Linus was appointed bishop by Peter and Paul. "exercising" the office of bishop means being the bishop. you don't exercise an office you don't have.
Does this mean I am accusing Newadvent and Rome of lying? yes I accuse Rome and its partisans of lying. They lied with the Donation of Constantine, the sole basis for claiming secular rule; they lie now with the false translation of "fornication" as "illegal marriages" instead of an umbrella term for all possible sexual impurity including adultery as a basis for divorce and remarriage. porneia is where we get the word pornography, or art about whores, from. Babylon the Great doesn't have people intoxicated with the wine of her illegal marriages.
The Apostolic Council in Acts 15 wouldn't be warning against illegal marriages and not unchastity in general. Paul wouldn't be warning against fornication in I Cor.6:16 and specify a prostitute if porneia meant "illegal marriages."
They lie about anything that gets in the way of the prestige and power of the papacy.
I do not argue with Jesus, it is YOU WHO ARE ARGUING WITH JESUS, because you are the one claiming that His statements to Peter add up to Rome being supreme.
I am not arguing with what Jesus said to Peter,
I DENY YOUR FALSE APPLICATION OF IT TO EXALT ROME ABOVE AT LEAST ONE OTHER EQUALLY PETRINE SEE AND THE REST OF THE CHURCH.
And the fathers at Chalcedon knew of no such basis for Roman primacy (which in Greek is not the same as supremacy) since they said THE FATHERS not Jesus had given Rome top honor not rule, because Rome was the first city of the empire PETER IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
you equate Peter's position with Roman position. YOUR EQUATION IS FALSE.
So what if Peter was the Bishop of Antioch before he became Bishop of Rome?
So what if Peter was also in Jerusalem?
While Antioch was indeed one of the four major Apostolic Sees, Ignatius of Antioch was not the head of the Church. Peter was. And Peter, with Paul's assistance, established the See at Rome and served as Bishop of Rome until his death by crucifixion at the hands of Nero.
Peter's primacy as well as that of his successors was acknowledged in the writings of the Church Fathers no matter where Peter or his successors went before becoming Popes/Bishops of Rome. For Catholics, the Pope is the chief pastor of the whole Church and the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
From a Roman Catholic point of view, "Where Peter is, there is the Church" - not the other way around.
Pope Francis was the bishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina before becoming Pope, but that doesn't mean that Roman Catholics are going to "follow Buenos Aires."
They are going to follow the teachings of the Pope.
In 2007, representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church jointly stated that both East and West accept the fact of the Bishop of Rome's primacy at the universal level, but that differences of understanding exist about how the primacy is to be exercised and about its scriptural and theological foundations.
THE RAVENNA DOCUMENT
THE DECLARATION OF RAVENNA
Peter from 33 - 67
Linus from 67 - 76
(and on an on, up through the present Francis I in 2013.)
They are going to follow the teachings of the Pope."
Excellent point, Susanna!!!
Rome is NOT MORE petrine than Antioch it is equal in that regard. So Rome is not supreme.
Where Peter is there is the Church, eh? fine. Where is Peter? Antioch, Rome directly Alexandria appointed Mark, Constantinople his brother appointed the bishop, Jerusalem Peter started the church there and I guess appointed James to be bishop so he could spend more time preaching.
Don't you get it? Where the faith of Peter is, there is the church.
But does Rome keep the faith of Peter unaltered?
Not really. you make an issue of salvation being dependent on being in communion with your schismatic bishop.
you teach the filioque against the words of Jesus Christ Himself (so you following Rome argue with Jesus Christ, and if "the Spirit of Christ" means double procession Jesus would have said so, but He also said that all the Father has is also His, which is all that "the Spirit of Christ" as a title of The Holy Spirit adds up to. Not double procession (which is about origin, and Rome is backpedalling on THAT one claiming it doesn't mean that but that IS what it meant originally it is making concessions to the Orthodox, it is seeing its error BUT WON'T ADMIT ITS ERROR.)
you emphasize Mary far beyond the Tradition of the undivided Church which you divided when you went into schism.
you allow the eating of meat with blood in it or added to it, chicken with the neck wrung instead of head cut off and blood sausage, against the rule handed down by James and not contradicted by Peter, and canons reinforcing this rule by at least two Councils which you accept.
you modified the Holy Liturgy to remove the epiclesis AFTER the words of institution.
and the irrelevant and unnecessary Immaculate Conception and other things.
Peter is not nearly at much at Rome as he is in the Orthodox Church nowdays.
where Peter is, there is the church so....
the church is at Antioch by your own definition. As much as at Rome. And by priority of his episcopate at Antioch, more than at Rome.
But ROME DID NOT GET PRIMACY BECAUSE OF PETER it got it from being the first city of the empire, and the fathers deciding to mirror the organization of the world in the organization of the church, but not as a supremacy. Chalcedon canon 28, and the only reason Rome didn't accept that canon was NOT because of that statement but because it didn't want Alexandria to lose second place to Constantinople.
The argument for elevation of Constantinople was precisely that EVEN AS ROME HAD FIRST HONOR BECAUSE FIRST CITY OF THE EMPIRE so also Constantinople should have second honor because it, not Alexandria, was the second city of the empire.
The decision at the next council cinched Constantinople's elevation, and Rome and Alexandria had to live with it.
The point is not some later bishop who transfers city and becomes Patriarch of Rome.
The point is his claim to supremacy over all the churches. That claim (developed several centuries after the fact) is based on PETER being bishop there,
but PETER BEING BISHOP ANYWHERE ELSE CLOUDS ROMAN CLAIMS. Because it makes any city Peter was bishop of equal to Rome.
how can his Apostolic charism vanish from a see he established?
http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria list of popes of Alexandria, Rome borrowed the title.
NONE OF THESE LISTS INCLUDES HERETICAL OR LATIN ETC. CHURCHES WHICH ALSO HAVE LINEAGES IN ANTIOCH AND ALEXANDRIA.
Was it not quite obvious that we were gonna get the church father thing from Susanna when Constance ask for her input?
Everyone else is held to a standard of providing links to show claims are accurate. Not opinions of one's who belong to the same organization. Or articles that claim it MIGHT be the cell of Peter (they don't know for absolute sure that it was).
Shoddy evidence as proof. If we held everything else on this blog to the same standards, you could never PROVE anything. Susanna and all the Anon's EVIDENCE IS NOT WITHOUT BIAS.
let's try AGAIN. I'd there any HISTORICAL evidence?
I hope you are not preterconsciously propositioning me Paulie, I'm probably a bit too big for you and you are definitely not my type. However, of you fancy yourself the big man, then I've no problem coming over and having that 'laugh' with you. Leave your details and I'll be in touch (not in the way you were with your roommate though)!
Muslim? No! A Christian through and through me: unlike yourself eh... Oh you're definitely worrying to most men out there I'm sure... hidden dangers of the rainbow hey Paulie boy!
Salt stings but it also sanitises!
Give it a rest, already. I'd read paul's account back when it was first stated, and it's abundantly clear to me it was as Susanna stated above. You're words here are only to cause strife. That's hardly the mark of one walking in the Spirit, but rather, one walking in the flesh (Galatians 5:16-26).
In the time of the Church Fathers, there was only one Christian Church to belong to.
The term "catholic," which simply means "universal" ( true at all times and in all places ) was not even used to refer to the Church until the 2nd century.
Catholic was first used to describe the Christian church in the early 2nd century. The first known use of the phrase "the catholic church" (he katholike ekklesia) occurred in the letter from St Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about 110 AD. In the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the name "Catholic Church" is used to distinguish it from other groups that also call themselves the Church. ( especially the gnostic heretics )
I don't know what your definition of "historical" is, but when asked about the origins of Catholic Christian beliefs as I was asked on this thread by Constance, the "Church Father thing" is most certainly going to be included in my reply.
Because while the ancient writings of the Church Fathers, might not be convenient for Catholic bashers, they are most certainly and objectively historical.
As for bias, the one who is biased here is you - especially since your own bias has blinded you to the fact that the writings of the Church Fathers are unequivocally acknowledged by many Protestants.
The Church fathers are just as important to the mainstream Protestants and some Evangelicals as they are for Catholics. I am thinking, for example, of the Oxford Movement in England where apart from the Tracts for the Times, the group began a collection of translations of the Church Fathers, which they called the Library of the Fathers. We Catholics don't own the Church Fathers.
Another thing to note is that not everything the Church Fathers wrote became official Church teaching. Many Church Fathers stated things that were their own opinion and not specifically the teaching of the Church.
But regardless of whether or not everything the Church Fathers wrote became Church teaching, the writings themselves are historical.
To deny their historicity is to allow one's bigoted zeal to outrun one's scruples.
(I don't think that Wikipedia is 'Catholic.')
Also, anyone who chooses to ignore the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18 is a 'cafeteria Christian' (one who only selects the scripture they agree with and dismisses any scripture they disagree with).
For those who believe, no more proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, all the proof in the world wouldn't be enough.
First of all, in Matthew 16:18 it is clear that Peter (or Peter’s confession) is accorded as foundational to the Church. The key word here is οἰκοδομήσω (oikodomēsō), rendered build in most (all?) translations. Nowhere in this word do we find anything about any sort of perpetual office. And one must ask, if on Peter (or Peter’s confession) the Church is to be built, wouldn’t this imply a foundation? If foundational, then, using the analogy of a house, why would we continue putting a foundation upon the same foundation? In fact, the first part of the Greek word above is formed from οἶκος, meaning house.
Interestingly, Ephesians 2:20 contains the same word, though prefixed with the preposition επι, which means upon. Here it is in context, in the NAB (Revised Edition):
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, 20 built upon [ἐποικοδομηθέντες – aorist passive participle] the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. 21 Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; 22 in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
The meaning of the above passage is that Christians, the “holy ones”, the saints (τῶν ἁγίων, tōn agiōn), from the NT era to the present and future are part of the “household of God,” which is “built upon the foundation of the apostles [which includes Peter] and prophets” with the capstone (chief cornerstone in the NIV) being Christ Himself. Note that there is no special mention of Peter here.
Secondly, as to an “unbroken succession” of Popes, here is something that should be considered in the discussion:
If a sitting Pope is later termed a heretic, how can said Pope, e.g., Honorius – 625 to 638, be part of a chain of Popes? As the wiki link notes re: Honorius: “Named a heretic and anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (680).” Certainly, to be deemed a heretic must mean that Honorius was at odds with Scripture and/or “Tradition”, and/or “the Magisterium”, which means he must have been speaking about matters of “faith and morals,” meaning he was speaking ex cathedra in the matters deeming him a heretic. This is an obvious contradiction, as how could he be speaking infallibly (ex cathedra) yet be heretical simultaneously, since being a heretic implies being wrong about these very kind of things?
I DO NOT DENY OR TAKE ISSUE WITH THE WORDS OF CHRIST TO PETER.
I take issue with your application of them to make Rome supreme.
YOU are the one denying Christ's words when you make Rome supreme, on the basis of those words, yet deny equal supremacy to the equally petrine Antioch.
Now, Orthodox don't have a top Patriarch over all patriarchs, a Roman equivalent like your papacy claims to be. I am not pushing for Antioch to become that.
I am applying your interpretation and application of the words of Christ to show that even if you can taken them like you do, that doesn't leave Rome alone supreme.
You are the ONLY one using words like 'Rome Supreme' (sounds like a pizza with everything on it).
I certainly NEVER used that terminology!!!
So, stop going off the deep end with words that don't apply to me.
you are being disingenuous. you never used that phrase, but that is what you are arguing for, that is the direction anyone taking your words to heart would tend to go.
that is the purpose of this kind of propagands.
when you see "Peter" you think "Rome" but it is more diffuse than that.
Athanasius is used as a witness for papal primacy on numerous Catholic apologist sites.
"Rome is called the Apostolic throne."
Whelton however says that Athanasius does not use the definite article (the) in the text.
"Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne…"
Rome is an Apostolic throne, not the Apostolic throne. Augustine too is misquoted on the same point of grammar ...
Pope Leo XIII
"And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, "the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church (Ep. xliii., n. 7)"
"…because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished."
Whelton goes on to say that for Augustine there is not one Apostolic See, but many ...
"You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion ..."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy
As I have told you, your argument is not with me....but with the words of Jesus Himself. (All I am doing is quoting His own words verbatim.)
The very fact that the Catholic Church has SURVIVED (in spite of its various problems over the centuries) for nearly 2,000 years should be all the PROOF anyone needs as to His INTENTION for its continuity and endurance.
now in your sin of pride you have gone to false accusation.
I never accused Jesus of anything. I accuse you of MISINTERPRETING His words and MISAPPLYING them as part of YOUR propaganda.
YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING WITH CHRIST, WHO NEVER SAID ONE WORD ABOUT ROME. The most that can be held to is a triumvirate superiority of the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, which was the position of Pope Gregory the Great.
ALL churches with their bishops track back ultimately to Peter, because he started the church with his preaching in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
The exact same timeframe of survival of Roman Catholicism (which actually is different from the ways of Rome in the early days) is ALSO TRUE OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES.
YOU are the one who is so full of pride that you are spending endless hours distorting the words of Jesus!!!
if that is how He intended them why didn't He say "you will go to Rome and establish the church there"? no He started it off at Pentecost in Jerusalem.
I did the research and there are translation issues raised here by another, and your position is WRONG. That is why I chose Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism when I moved out of protestantism.
A classic example of Roman lies is to call us "schismatic." technically by YOUR standards and the facts of history (interpreted by your standards) we are not schismatics we are EXCOMMUNICATED. The initiative came from Rome and was answered in kind.
Why do you lie? Perhaps because as Lee Penn's research shows, the bull of excommunication was not entirely legal by Roman canon law at the time?
In any case YOU LIE. History shows, even your own history, that your rep put a BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION on the altar in Constantinople.
So why do you lie? you follow a line being laid down by Rome in blind loyalty, a line that is FALSE by Rome's own history sources!
Maybe you need to reassess Rome as reliable.
Re: if that is how He intended them why didn't He say "you will go to Rome and establish the church there"?
Now, in your arrogance, you are demanding that Jesus give YOU an explanation?
You are all hung up on the Catholic Church being a PLACE or a particular city. (And, by the way, YOU are the one who keeps bringing up Rome.)
Have you had a mental health evaluation recently?
stop being dishonest. "Rome" is the patriarchate for most of western europe. "Rome" is where the Vatican and pope are located outside the city limits but near. All your crap is about Roman Catholicism.
And yes your crap IS about a particular place because you base your claims on events in that place.
Jesus does not need to give me an explantion. YOU ARE NOT JESUS, YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR HIM, YOU LIE ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT HE SAID.
YOU NEED TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION TO JESUS.
YOU ARE NOT JESUS. I argue with YOU not with Jesus.
And you argue with Jesus and twist His words to fit an agenda.
AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHY DOES ROMAN CATHOLICISM LIE AND SAY WE ARE SCHISMATIC WHEN IN FACT WE ARE, BY YOUR ORIGINAL ACCOUNT, EXCOMMUNICATED?
and that's not the only example.
No one is bigoted or biased. Church fathers who belong to the same fraternity going on hearsay is not verifiable evidence.
Peter may have been in Rome at the time of question. I do not know for sure. I am simply stating that there is NO HISTORICAL RECORD whatsoever that shows he was!
There are No verifiable records from ANYONE who lived at the time, whether church fathers or historians.
It is a matter of your faith.
NOT FACT as you seem to present.
I like how you let us know that Babylon was just a "code name" for Rome in the NT.
How do you know that? Church fathers tell you so!
"The trouble with protestants is that they think they are reading the Bible for themselves, but what they are doing is reading it as meaning only what various famous men have said it means."
Re:Church fathers who belong to the same fraternity going on hearsay is not verifiable evidence.
My, my! Hearsay???
Which "gospel" have you been reading? The "gospel" according to professional anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner?
It appears to me that you are the one who is wandering off the Christian reservation since it was none other than St. Paul himself who stated in Romans 10:17, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
Ergo, it is YOU who is in error.... again!!!
First of all, the Church Fathers were the direct disciples of the Apostles or followers of the disciples of the Apostles. the Apostles HEARD the Word of God before they or their scribes wrote them down. This is what Catholics understand as Sacred Tradition as I have explained before. The Apostolic Fathers HEARD the word of God from the Apostles or the disciples of the Apostles. If these Church Fathers could be described as being in a "club," for many, it was a "club of martyrs."
The Apostolic Fathers is a term used to describe a group of Early Christian writings produced in the late 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century. These writings, though not unpopular in Early Christianity, were ultimately not part of the New Testament once it reached its final form. Many of the writings derive from the same time period and geographical location as other works of early Christian literature that did come to be part of the final form of the New Testament, and some of the writings found among the "Apostolic Fathers" seem to have been just as highly regarded as some of the writings (that remained) in the New Testament.
For example, St. Irenaeus, who wrote the famous Adversus Haereses to refute the gnostic heretics including the Samaritan heretic Simon Magus who was called the "father of all heretics," was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of the Apostle St. John the Evangelist.
The writings of the Church Fathers may be inconvenient for people like you, but they are historical documents whether you happen to like it or not and many are acknowledged as such not only by Catholics and Orthodox but also by mainstream Protestant and some Evangelicals.
I have already mentioned the Oxford Movement in 19th century England which emphasized the writings of the Church Fathers, but from the Orthodox Wiki we read about St. Irenaeus, for example:
The holy and glorious, right-victorious Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John the Theologian. His feast day is August 23.
From another Orthodox site it reads:
So, we've now established that Irenaeus is not arguing for the authority of Scripture alone, nor does he assert Scripture's authority over or outside of the Church. Instead, Irenaeus asserts that Scripture is a part of the Holy Tradition of the Church whose Truth is preserved by means of Apostolic Succession from the Apostles.
And I'll close this post with a quote from Irenaeus in which he tells us exactly where that Church is to be found -- even in our own day:
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the Tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" - AH, 3, 4, 1
But hey.....rave on!
By the way, no one here has to take my word - or yours. Anyone who wants to learn about the historical significance of the Church Fathers need only go and look up their writings for themselves.
Re:I like how you let us know that Babylon was just a "code name" for Rome in the NT.
How do you know that? Church fathers tell you so!
Actually, I learned this from well-educated Protestants, who interpret the "Babylon" mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13 as a code name for Rome since the historical Babylon no longer existed at the time Peter or his scribe Mark wrote 1 Peter. But it is a Catholic teaching as well.
LOL Even Jack Chick and Dave Hunt agree about that!!!
protestant denominations and the RC that was just an information thing, not the product of any denomination.
I compared the points to the Bible and found NOT ONE OF THEM was a perfect fit to The Bible. I was not going to start my own denomination however, so I just decided to focus on Jesus and attend where He was the focus, but not formally join anything. Orthodoxy wasn't on the list.
about 30 years and a lot of on and off research later I joined the Eastern Orthodox Church through the Orthodox Church of America now since I moved I go to a Greek Orthodox Church they are all in communion with each other. There are some notions floating around even in Orthodoxy that out of whack, but these are not official positions of any Ecumenical Council or jurisdiction even if they've snuck into some seminaries, and are easily refuted by Church Fathers and prominent more recent writers and Councils.
First of all, since 1965, during the papacy of pope Paul VI, the mutual Catholic - Orthodox excommunications have been lifted.
So if anyone is telling you otherwise, THEY are the ones who are not being truthful!
CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX JOINT DECLARATION OF 1965
As for the Rome vs. Antioch issue, Christ delegated the primatial authority to a person...PETER....not a place.
So Peter could have founded churches all over the place, but Rome was designated as the primatial see - either by Peter's own choice or at Our Lord's command.
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME
But this doesn't make Antioch "chopped liver" in terms of its importance. Antioch was one of the four MAJOR SEES of early Christianity, and the purpose of the Petrine charism was UNITY, not power.
This is not to say that at times some Popes did not try to make the Petrine charism primarily about power.
But Whenever they did, their actions were usually followed by the kind of divine "smackdown" that served to cut politicking popes down to size.
There has been a great deal of fruitful dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox concerning a proper understanding of the Petrine Charism.
Check out the Ravenna Document that I previously mentioned.
My point is, that whenever a hostility from an RC source crops up, we are styled "schismatic," when in fact the move of separation (whether you want to call it schism as from a parent body, or excommunication, as in disowning by a parent body) came from the RC, and that was in the form of an excommunication.
Which is still in effect pretty much.
I think it was Pope Benedict XVI who styled the Protestants as effectively Christian sodalities, in which you could find salvation, but not actual churches, i.e., no apostolic succession of the clergy ergo no valid sacraments.
My personal take on the protestants is that they are the equivalent of slap happy catechumens. I take Jesus' word for it that whoever comes to Him He will not cast out, and that whoever is not against Him and the Apostles is for them. The latter was said regarding a man who cast out demons in Jesus' Name, but did not follow with the Apostles in their travels with Jesus.
But I like being in the core trunk so to speak instead of just branches. And I find Holy Water and blessed oil helpful.
And as for liturgical worship, loathed or barely tolerated by many protestants, my favorite answer to protestants is "isn't Jesus worthy of being worshipped with gold and silver and colors and incense and candles?"
Re: First of all, the Church Fathers were the direct disciples of the Apostles or followers of the disciples of the Apostles. the Apostles HEARD the Word of God before they or their scribes wrote them down. This is what Catholics understand as Sacred Tradition as I have explained before. The Apostolic Fathers HEARD the word of God from the Apostles or the disciples of the Apostles. If these Church Fathers could be described as being in a "club," for many, it was a "club of martyrs."
YES....and isn't it IRONIC how Protestants dare to accuse Catholics of following 'the traditions of men' - when the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ (who was GOD) and all of the Protestant sects (that broke away from the Catholic Church) were founded by MEN (e.g. Martin Luther, John Calvin, King Henry VIII, etc.).
You are the ONLY one going off the deep end using words like 'excommunicated' and schismatic.'
No one else on this blog is saying those words to you.
(Signs of paranoia on your part?)
If anything, we Catholic would rather see a healing take place....rather than the division that exists with so many misinformed anti-Catholics.
It's very difficult when individuals like you call us 'liars' and call our beliefs 'crap' (as you did at 1:20 AM).
no one else uses those terms because they don't please to do so, but these ARE the terms in use in more knowledgeable places and among those who speak according to that. I doubt
the person I was arguing with was ignorant of that.
"Rome" is a glyph for "Roman Catholic" as everyone knows regarding such discussions as here, even RC uses it as "Rome has spoken." yet the person driven into a corner starts saying I am focussing on a PLACE an obvious obfuscation attempt which is dishonest.
It appears that Christine doesn't just have 'issues' with the world's 1.2 BILLION Catholics; she also has issues with Protestants. Here is a quote from her a few days ago. In the second last paragraph to a long post to Paul at 11:47 PM, she states:
"The trouble with protestants is that they think they are reading the Bible for themselves, but what they are doing is reading it as meaning only what various famous men have said it means." *
It sure looks like she pretty much hates everybody not of her (by far) superior faith as she paints us with such a broad brush in her disapproval. Oh yes! Her own 'faith' is so pristine that she is a marvel in herself just for spouting it!
We are not stupid as she supposes.......we can smell the rotteness of her 'fruit'.
At least two Catholics on this blog feel that you are focusing too much on a 'place'....when, in fact, we view the Catholic Church as being 'located' in the hearts and minds of its 1.2 BILLION Catholic followers worldwide.
Where Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ made Peter the first Pope; where Peter went after that (Antioch); and when he arrived in Rome are irrelevant to the FACT that Jesus Christ founded His Catholic Church in 33 AD (before He was crucified and died for the sins of all mankind) and made HIS decision to make Peter the HEAD of His church....period.
In other words, if Jesus wasn't concerned with any of these 'locations' (obviously not concerning Himself with the fact that they would be made into an 'issue' on a blog nearly 2,000 years later)....no one else should be focused on this either!!!
Jesus himself will one day straighten out what every church era has gotten confused. The letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation shows that all of the localities of churches had some things right and some things wrong. Only two had no rebuke from Him.
Perhaps Christine should wait on the Lord to mercifully fix what is wrong with His church that is the whole body of Christ (and nothing except persecution will truly let Him scour us clean)...isn't this what all of us need?......but also all the while Jesus can fix her miserable existence--that is if she will humble herself to let Him.
on the basis of all that, Constance shouldn't be doing what she is doing with this blog.
Paul at least twice talks about addressing what is wrong, not passively waiting for Jesus to do it all.
Here's a good example of doing the right thing.
RC considers ONLY "Rome" and its present doctrines are legitimate, and I bring up Antioch because EO did not get into the "doctrinal development" that RC did but tries to avoid this and keep to the faith delivered once and for all to the Apostles.
Peter had nothing to do with Rome getting a preeminence of honor, that was political as is made clear in the statement at Chalcedon, which is not retracted in the followup canon in the next Ecumenical Council.
Doctrines promulgated out of "Rome" i.e., the papacy, on who the hearts of "Catholics" centers, are taken as of Peter whether they are in fact or not. "Rome" being equated with Peter they assume the newer developments are of Peter.
Question: did you know that the intention of the priest is necessary to the Eucharist being properly consecrated? so how do you know the intention and even faith is there?
Having the invocation to The Holy Spirit to make the transformation of bread and wine into The Body and Blood of Christ be done AFTER the words of institution covers any problem. But RC does not do an epiclesis, only a request BEFORE the words of institution that the bread and wine be blessed so that it is able to be transformed.
While all Eucharists may be valid, there is an inherent structural problem here and it is one that RC created, this is not how the once uniform Holy Liturgy was done in Asia, Europe and Africa, as standardized in the Holy Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the early centuries.
"And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke. and gave it to his disciples, and said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' And taking a cup, he gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'All of you drink of this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins"' (Matthew 26:26-28).
"And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing it, he broke and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And taking a cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, 'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many"' (Mark 14:22-24).
"And having taken bread, he gave thanks and broke, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In like manner he took also the cup after the supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you"' (Luke 22:19-20).
"For I myself have received from the Lord (what I also delivered to you), that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks broke, and said, 'This is my body which shall be given up for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In like manner also the cup, after he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes.' Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the cup; for he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body, eats and drinks judgment to himself" (I Corinthians 11:23-29).
Christine, this is exactly how you miss the mark in matters of a spiritual nature. Your bludgeoning with your own 'expert' info is so counterproductive. And not the way of the Spirit of the Lord
You need the transformation part badly.
Mr Solana is the real Energizer Bunny.
He is the globalist's globalist and mentor extraordinaire.
Here is a list of some of his affliations:
Aspen Institute España, chairman
Centre of Human Dialogue, honorary president
Council on Foreign Relations, Global Board of Advisers, member
European Council on Foreign Relations, board member
Fundación La Caixa, board member
Global Commission on Drug Policy, member
Hertie School of Governance, senior fellow
Human Rights Watch, board member
Institute of Modern International Relations, Tsinghua University, advisor
International Crisis Group, board member
London School of Economics, senior visiting professor
Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, president
Museo Nacional del Prado, board member
Yalta European Strategy, board member
He will turn 73 this July.
This fact does disqualify him
I don't want to get into any protracted argument with you either since many of the differences between Catholics and Protestants are matters of interpretation based on two different rules of faith and two different Old Testament canons.
Constance's question simply had to do with whether or not Peter went to Rome.
According to the church Fathers, Peter did go to Rome, established what became the primatial See and was martyred there after appointing Linus as his successor.
Don't get me wrong. I totally respect your sincerity and your admirable zeal for the Christian faith.
All I am saying is that if you are basing your understanding of Christian ecclesiology on the Sola Scriptura Rule of faith, then you are right in saying that the issue between Protestants and Catholics regarding the belief that the primatial authority of the Petrine charism was delegated by Christ to Peter and his successors will never be settled.
Regarding the Honorius question, the real culprit seems to have been Sergius who at the time was Patriarch of Constantinople and was, unfortunately, more a politician than a theologian.
The bottom line is that Pope Honorius did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church concerning the matter in question. Nor did he claim to speak with the voice of Peter.
If Honorius was condemned, it was not in the sense that he officially proclaimed a heresy.
The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius." That is, the papacy condemned Honorius not for teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but for negligently permitting heretical positions to stand alongside orthodox ones.
Here is the complete lowdown on Honorius from New Advent.
In those days, popes did not have the pretension that they were superior to Ecumenical Councils. Here is what wikipedia says, and since he followed the monothelites in all things and favored them, it doesn't matter that he didn't make some formal public pronouncement, he was a heretic.
"Although Honorius never issued a dogmatic (ex cathedra) decree in regard to the controversy of Christ's wills, he favoured Monothelitism. He supported a formula proposed by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between Monothelites and the rest of the Catholic Church. Monothelitism is the teaching that Christ has only one will, the divine will, in contrast with the teaching that He has both a divine will and a human will. To this end, Honorius "sent his deacon Gaios" to a synod in Cyprus in 634 hosted by archbishop Arkadios II with additional representatives from Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople. The anti-Monothelite side in Jerusalem, championed by Maximus the Confessor and Sophronius of Jerusalem, sent to this synod Anastasius (a pupil of Maximus), George of Reshaina (a pupil of Sophronius), two of George of Raishana's own pupils, and eight bishops from Palestine. When the two sides were presented to the Emperor, the Emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so did Honorius. (George of Reshaina, "An Early Life of Maximus the Confessor", 316–7)
He was apparently aware of the rise of Islam.
More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".
Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"
This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine, but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, "and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted". The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius." That is, the papacy condemned Honorius not for teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but for negligently permitting heretical positions to stand alongside orthodox ones."
The last remark is the present papacy's effort to protect papal infallibility. But sending a legate to a council to support monotheletism is certainly the equivalent of such a statement,
and since pope's weren't considered the final word back then, The Tome of Leo NOT BEING ACCEPTED UNTIL CHECKED AGAINST CYRILLIAN THEOLOGY being a case in point, it would seem he had done officially all it took to qualify as a heretic and since he sent pro monothelite legates in his official position as bishop of Rome (I don't recall if the term pope was in use at that time except by Alexandria or not it might have been), then HE WAS SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA IN DOING SO. "Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra) "
Going against them cultists, is like going against ravening wolves!
Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that there is a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century. He says there is no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century.
John W. O'Malley S.J.
John O’Malley’s specialty is the religious culture of early modern Europe, especially Italy. He has received best-book prizes from the American Historical Association, the American Philosophical Society, the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, and from the Alpha Sigma Nu franternity. His best known books are The First Jesuits (Harvard University Press, 1993), which has been translated into ten languages, and What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard, 2008). He has edited or co-edited a number of volumes, including three in the Collected Works of Erasmus series, University of Toronto Press. Of special significance is The Jesuits and the Arts, (Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2005), co-edited with Gauvin Alexander Bailey.
John O’Malley has lectured widely in North America and Europe to both professional and general audiences. He has held a number of fellowships, from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Council of Learned Societies, and other academic organizations. He is past president of the Renaissance Society of America and of the American Catholic Historical Association. In 1995 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in 1997 to the American Philosophical Society, and in 2001 to the Accademia di san Carlo, Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy. He holds the Johannes Quasten Medal from The Catholic University of America for distinguished achievement in Religious Studies, and he holds a number of honorary degrees. In 2002 he received the lifetime achievement award from the Society for Italian Historical Studies and in 2005 the corresponding award from the Renaissance Society of America. He is a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Society of Jesus.
Francis A. Sullivan S.J.
MA, Philosophy, Boston College, 1945
MA, Classics, Fordham University, 1948
STD, Gregorian University, 1956
Before coming to Boston College in 1992, Fr. Sullivan was professor of ecclesiology in the Faculty of Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome for 36 years, where he was dean of that faculty from 1964 to 1970.
Ecclesiology, ecumenism, Church history
Fr. Sulivan has given courses to graduate students at Boston College on the following topics: Church, Sacrament of Salvation; Ministry in the Early Church; Evaluation and Interpretation of Documents of the Magisterium; Ecclesiological Issues in Ecumenical Dialogues; Documents of Vatican II.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND AWARDS
He serves as a theological advisor to the USA Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue Commission. He is a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America, which in 1994 awarded him its John Courtney Murray Award for Distinguished Achievement in Theology.
Said Christine's one fan from a trailer park somewhere at 3:11 AM.
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that very LIBERAL Jesuit priests have disagreed with more traditional and conservative aspects of Catholic doctrine. It certainly doesn't mean that their opinions are written in stone.
I can identify with your sentiment, for I say the exact same thing basically, regarding some teachings that have
even gotten into seminaries in the Orthodox Church in the past 100 years, which undermine The Atonement
and Original Sin, doctrines taught all along until Metropolitan Khrapovitsky started his line of
talk, and Kalomiros took up more of it.
An excellent book on the subject, or rather two excellent books, by Vladimir Moss are The Mystery of the
Redemption and The New Soteriology.
A similar trend exists in evangelicalism and liberal protestantism, and I think you may
find some of his information and arguments helpful in answering these, even if you don't like Orthodoxy. you can download these free at
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.comThat said, I think before denouncing Fr. Sullivan because he says things you
are not used to hearing, that you should study the evidence he presents. I just got his book on kindle, thanks to the mention here,
From Apostles to Bishops at amazon.com for $12.99 and am reading it now.
Orthodox as valid, and the whole point of being in what I call a liturgical church is to have a certain Eucharist,
the Body and Blood of Christ,
what matter to you if we don't adhere to the Roman pope? I mean, what's the point? Unless your real game is a kind
whole church to a congregation sitting in judgement on a matter. context Matt. 15:18.
Clearly things are not as simple as RC makes out. and since all the Patriarchates have a Petrine
connection, they are indeed all equals. Roman primacy was of honor not of ruling. Perhaps the Latin
meaning was different than the Greek in translating "primacy," resulting in some confusion?
Do you know what's really sad? The fact that you obviously have no life. You seem to be obsessed with posting on this blog 24/7....and trying to make yourself relevant, no matter how many people continue to call you out on your obsessive, rambling postings.
You are a classic narcissist.
Re: "Clearly things are not as simple as RC makes out."
Well, Christine - when you have LOTS of people over a 2,000 year history, there are going to be disagreements along the way (as in any family).
You know? Kind of like you Protestants have had many disagreements since Martin Luther.
And, I love the way you refer to any Catholic poster as 'RC'....I guess it beats being called 'you people' though. LOL
that is YOUR real game. The Roman Catholic Church IS NOT JESUS.
you are the narcissist, playing the game of identifying with some group or
other so apparently not self centered, but it is your "greater self" so your
narcissism can displace onto that, and you can feel you are Jesus or whoever.
I repeat, THE CHURCH IS NOT JESUS CHRIST. the Church is the BRIDE OF CHRIST and since when does anyone marry Himself?
we are the metaphorical aka spiritual body of Christ, another metaphor is foundation and pillar (i.e., housing) of the truth (and Jesus is The Truth).
once again YOU ARE NOT JESUS.
my argument is with you, not with Jesus, Whose words you twist.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT JESUS, NEITHER IS ANY OTHER CHURCH.
my argument is with the Roman Catholic Church, not with Jesus, Whose words RC twists.
Get over yourself, Christine!!!
church to refer to itself to all the churches.
Get over yourself.
As for Fr. Sullivan's book, there is the very severe problem of his low view of Scripture and accepting modernist
"scholars" nonsense. However, disregarding that, Scripture cites he uses can be helpful. But while he fails
to see indications of a episcopate in the early days, or in the NT, it is evident. For instance, Paul had
appointed an episcopos for a large city, and presumably would do the same everywhere. In some small villages maybe not.
Some things that are mentioned just once might be normative everywhere, and taken for granted as the common
knowledge of the readers so no need to deal with it.
Yes, there are indications of an Apostolic Succession being born, but whether that invariably went through
the bishops or sometimes zig zagged through priests bishops had ordained
before dying or being imprisoned is another matter.
Christine, you are a TWIT....and my time is much too valuable to waste any more of it on this discussion that is going nowhere.
BTW your Apostolic Succession bottlenecks in a man in the Renaissance I forget his name, of whose consecration there is no record. Ours does not.
As a traditional Catholic, I am in full agreement with this theology teacher, Patricia Jannuzzi's opinion. Others who wish to show their support for her and express their outrage should write to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect in Rome (at the address in the article).
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]