For the record, here's what appeared in my first issue of NEW AGE MONITOR as a "tease" to what would be in the second issue:
 |
| New Age Monitor, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1986
The next issue, June, 1986 had extensive reporting on both Michael Aquino and then Brigadier General Vallely. Email me at cumbey@gmail.com with the subject line "AQUINO NEWSLETTER" and I'll send you by reply email your own pesonal copy. You are free to copy the docu ment and "pass it on." My information source was Linda Blood who is also the author of the book THE NEW SATANISTS. She was once closely associated with Michael Aquino and his Temple of Set and subsequently repented of that involvement. I can email you a .pdf copy of that book as well, upon request.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
|
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261RayB and 2:21 PM, Good on ya. ;)
Thanks.
"Also, RC or EO can never explain that there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter was in Rome to be the "first bishop of Rome."
When Paul wrote his letter to Rome, he greeted several people, but NOT Peter. "
I totally agree, and Paul said to the Romans that he had for some time wanted
to visit them to give them some spiritual gift that they might be established.
(supernatural blessing, Apostolic Succession)
Peter got there very late. Roman Christians WERE NOT CONVERTED IN ROME BY
PAUL'S PREACHING ORIGINALLY, except for some pagans there who heard him
after he arrived, but the Christian population there was the result of
others who brought the faith from the Middle East or Greece in their travels
or on some mission from one of those congregations. Thus this was not
Paul's work so he says he doesn't want to build on another man's work.
But they ARE NOT ESTABLISHED. what does that mean? some special impartation
of blessing that The Holy Spirit gives primarily through Apostolic lineage.
Peter got there, he and Paul appointed a bishop. Peter MAY have been
the first bishop there, but he was also the first bishop of Antioch, so
Rome has nothing on Antioch. Peter appointed his successor and gave him
the episcopate before he died, so Peter was not bishop of Rome when he
died.
Anon 11:37
I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER.
DO YOU CONFESS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH - NOT JUST DID
COME IN THE FLESH BUT IS IN THE FLESH, PRESENT TENSE, PHYSICALLY
ALIVE NOW AND ALWAYS?
Anonymous said...
Slicing and dicing Jesus in this topic, Christine, figuratively and supposedly literally, is sport for you isn't it?
I am sure Jesus does not want us taken up with thinking (and your exploration/arguing) about His foreskin. But you are looking for more mind candy.
Your eyes are once again in the wrong place regarding the Lord. (do you even know Him?)
He is high and lifted up in my eyes because He is reigning high in the heavens above all things of the earth.
You should instead ponder Colossians 3:1-13. Please Jesus instead of the flesh of your mind.
11:37 AM
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
anon 11:37
when you think of Him as high in the heavens above all things of the
earth,
do you think of Him as having the physical body He lived in (though
now more supernatural but still PHYSICAL)?
The problem for you, Christine, is that you have to have the last word on this subject (and all others), so as long as someone holds any kind of small or large difference of opinion with you, then you must browbeat until they do.
(but doesn't work haven't you noticed?)
Who cares if you ask this question or any many questions or get answers to your satisfaction? Who cares?
You do, because you have made this about you, making yourself an issue in becoming an albatross around the neck of this blog.
And a heavy weight on Constance Cumbey's shoulders (as from your comment from another thread) for dissing her advice.
You sow tares among wheat (and discord too). Jesus said: an enemy has done this. You need to change your ways.
"Spiritual" you are---Godly you ain't.
anon 2:47
no I don't have to have the last word. I answer stuff.
and if you are the one or anyone I challenged to confess Jesus Christ IS in the flesh
then you are as usual doing an adroit evasion.
Constance Cumbey only thinks she has a blog with a comments section.
This is an interrogation room run by a feminazi named Christine Erikson.
Have fun trying to figure out what my answer is EO church lady. Already answered way back there, but you, of course, blew it off.
(like I care LOL!)
'Have fun trying to figure out what my answer is EO church lady. Already answered way back there, but you, of course, blew it off. "
anon 3:04
after I made that question NO ONE has quoted it and answered "yes"
and NO ONE has posted directly after it and answered "yes."
and if you posted "I believe the Bible, Christine. All 66 books
of it. And I know some history too.
By the way, Jesus is Lord. "
THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER. ANYONE CAN SAY THAT AND DENY EVERY DOCTRINE
OF THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY BY SIMPLY REINTERPRETEING AND TWISTING
SCRIPTURE.
therefore you are liar. YOU DID NOT ANSWER.
so answer me (either once or according to you again)
do you confess Jesus Christ IS STILL PHYSICALLY ALIVE AND ALWAYS
WILL BE that being above this earth does not mean He does not
have stuff OF this earth as part of Him?
Just remember what was posted in a comment following the Saturday, June 13, 2015 lead article.
"Constance Cumbey said...
Christine Erickson,
I love you and you are generous in deed and spirit, BUT, let's REMEMBER the principle of K-I-S-S -- "KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE." Leave out the insults, use the spelling checker, ie, check the grammar and don't trade insults with those petty enough to give them.
11:07"
Constance Cumbey said she loves Christine. No doubt it is Christian love. It is said love is blind. She said those who criticize Christine are petty. That says it all. No one can get past that roadblock to knowledge about the New Age movement. Remember that and save your sanity.
To Anonymous @ 2:21 PM ....
All very good points. I think it is interesting as well that Paul strongly admonished and corrected Peter for his error in teaching the necessity of circumcision to Jewish converts. Rather strange, isn't it, that Peter (the supposed 1st. "pope") bowed to the authority of Paul's correction?
I find interesting as well, that in the only two epistles penned by Peter, he NEVER mentions:
The Papacy nor primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
His Papal Authority over the entire church as its head.
Papal Infalibility.
The Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Charge of Money for Masses for the Dead.
Indulgences.
Penance as a system of works to "earn" salvation.
The Cup being withheld from the Laity.
No Salvation outside the Church of Rome (held strictly for CENTURIES).
Regeneration via infant baptism.
Purgatory (such an important doctrine .... NEVER mentioned once).
Mary or the veneration thereof.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary (her name doesn't even appear in either epistle).
Menial & Venial sins (unconfessed Menial sins automatically sends one to Hell).
Prayers to the saints.
The construction of images of saints and veneration thereof, etc.
The Office of the Priest.
The Confessional (along with the necessity to confess sins to a priest).
Celebacy.
The elevation of tradition and magistarianism that nullifies Scripture.
The practice of "annuling" marriages, even after children have been conceived.
The Seven Sacriments (along with Extreme Unction).
Amazing that somehow Peter didn't even so much as mention ANY of these bedrock doctrines of the Roman Catholic "faith."
annulling marriages is just a disguised divorce. children present or
not has nothing to do with it. Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage
without concomitant status of adultery for the new couple, if the
divorce was because of "fornication" porneia, where we get the word
pornography from, a term that incl. adultery but goes beyond it to
other perversion and sexual activity prior to marriage with other
than the betrothed that you can't stomach. Paul allowed remarriage
if abandoned.
Peter DOES speak TWICE of Jesus preaching to the dead, in one verse
specifically those held in prison since Noah's time, and there is
really no way you can twist this into preached via prophets to those
back then.
Extreme Unction is warped from what EO still keeps as Holy Unction
which is a healing ceremony not last rites, and derives fro James'
Epistle about anointing the sick with oil while elders pray for
the sick person. EO requires at least two priests for the consecration
of this oil ideally seven.
penance is both a disciplinary action to train you away from the
sin, showing sincere repentance, and taking punishment now instead
of later (Jesus warns the believers will have some judgement even
those not cast out) since baptism was held to cover sins prior to
baptism not after (without repentance which to early times before
Rome was claiming supremacy involved some time of exclusion from
church and sacraments and/or suffering like fasting and self
flogging developed in the west as a shortcut but it is dangerous
because it can stimulate endorphins and give pleasure instead of
pain.)
anon 3:04
I am still waiting for your answer, and affirming the Bible and Jesus
as Lord does not add up to an answer. you can say that and be a damn
Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. you could say all that and think Jesus
acquired Godhood after His birth at His baptism. You could say all
that and deny Jesus is divine at all.
DO YOU CONFESS JESUS CHRIST IS STILL ALIVE PHYSICALLY OR NOT?
THAT CHRIST IS - THAT'S IS NOT DID BUT IS -COME IN THE FLESH
THE GLORIFIED RESURTRECTION BODY BEING PHYSICAL?
or are you an antichrist?
RayB @ 4:03
All are excellent points.
Interestingly, I posted something similar a few months ago about Paul publicly rebuking Peter for shamefully disassociating from Gentiles when he spotted some Jews on the way.
So Paul told him what the real deal was?
Yes he did and RIGHTFULLY so. Not the other way around.
I also asked why was it that Paul authored something like 70% of the New Testament if Peter was as important as they claim.
Guess how many responses I got on both questions?
ZERO!!!!!!
And I am a former catholic of over 30 years, altar boy for 7 years, catholic school for 12 years, and practicing for many after that.
So, I KNOW their false doctrines very well.
Don't know do ya?
You are a terrible guesser and cannot read plain speech and must read in your own evaluations and 'analysis'. You are the one who is petty and demanding that people answer you. I owe you nothing.
Shame on you. Is this what your mother taught you or is this your own maverick course in life?
I know right where I'm at (who cares if you do?) and it is good (no great!) being forgiven under the Blood of Christ. Get over it, O, accuser of the brethren.
anon. 4:55
if you keep refusing to acknowledge that Jesus' Resurrection was physical
and permanent, that he did not merely rise in some spiritual resurrection
and did not die again later and is still physically alive in Heaven,
then you are not a Christian, your forgiven status is open to question (that's
your problem Christ might have mercy on you anyway)
and you have no authority to rebuke me or argue about the faith (except
if for instance the rebuke was about some evil i was doing or if I was
denying Christ existed)
4:02 PM you are correct.
Christine will start and/or keep up any argument and fight for the sake of fighting alone (even when no one else is engaged!)
This blog is her casualty since she reigns here as interrogator-in-chief.
Her manners are atrocious.
and that is not plain speech. THAT IS DECEPTIVE EQUIVOCAL EVASIVE SPEECH.
ANYONE READING IT WOULD THINK YOU MEAN WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. BUT
ANYONE READING IT WHO IS MORMON, OR JW WOULD ASSUME YOU ACCEPT THEIR
DOCTRINES IF READ IN SUCH A CONTEXT OR ANY PUBLIC FORUM.
YOU ARE EVASIVE. YOU WON'T GIVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER.
MARY BAKER EDDY WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME THING AS YOU DO (WITH THE
UNSPOKEN CAVEAT THAT SHE BELIEVED THE BIBLE AS SHE INTERPRETED IT
AND THAT JESUS IS LORD IN THE SENWSE OF THE BEST TEACHER YET BEFORE
HERSELF.)
and you are the one doing the accusing you and the others
accuse a lot and falsely. If I throw the focus on Jesus
somehow it is all about me if I point out that a historical
anomal like the Assumption could be true supposedly I just
argue to argue.
yes, RC does in practice, and by the message given by its
imagery and casual talk and "novenas" have a "pop Catholicism"
faith that is not that Christian.
I will not answer you because your tone and tactics with me and others are appalling.
I owe you nothing.
You have no idea how wrong you are EO church lady, but keep on yelling and getting all the attention you crave. You seem to thrive on and maybe even live for negative attention.
Something is wrong with that ya know.
YOU WON'T ANSWER BECAUSE IT WOULD EXPOSE YOU.
and all your fraudulent pretensions. I don't
live for negative attention and I could of course
say the same thing about you people who keep attacking
me though I either ignore or rebuke you, since your
attacks are baseless and their context shows they
are to silence a possible enemy of whatever segment
of new age mentality and/or practice you are into.
or just following along a pack.
Glory to you Jesus Christ, in your humanity we are seated
with you before God The Father, You representing us, and
in Your divinity You represent the Father to us. Christ
is risen from the dead, and death has no power over Him
(that last half sentence is specifically in the NT)
any compromising on the Incarnation or the REsurrection
(and its continuing reality physical reality), or attempts
to divide Christ into two different persons, are both
indicators of the antichrist.
you give all kinds of excuses, but won't EXPLICITLY confess
His literal physical and PERMANENT Resurrection. first you
wouldn't answer at all. Then you answer equivocally. a JW
could say the same and they are last I heard claiming the
Resurrection was spiritual not physical. Now your excuse
is my supposed rudeness.
evasion, excuses, you do not sound like a Christian. not
even an RC quality Christian. (never mind what the average
RC believes or doesn't believe I am talking about official
doctrine.)
You evaluate quality?
Well I finally understand.
Constance must have officially appointed Erikson for regulation of quality control for the blog!
I am not talking about the blog. I am talking about your credibility
as a critic.
Ray B. 2:21 P.M.
RE: Also, RC or EO can never explain that there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter was in Rome to be the "first bishop of Rome."
Sure we can. Contrary to what Lorraine Beottner unconvincingly proclaims, the Petrine Epistle 1Peter 5:13 mentions "Babylon" - a codename for Rome used on account of the persecutions......together with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
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 Empire.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome
Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. He would have been smarter than to encourage a manhunt by using terminology that would have tipped off the Romans that he was preaching the Gospels right under their noses.
This is also why Paul wouldn't have overtly mentioned Peter.....so as not to encourage a manhunt.
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].”
I'm talking about the blog and you have zero credibility for your mistreatment of people-actual people here at this place.
A real Christian would have graciously asked and responded that way as well, even if in disagreement. You only sow discord among brethren. One of the big 7 God hates.
That is why I will not answer you, no matter how wrong you have it about my beliefs as you try to coerce and manipulate to guess them, because I truly love to talk about all the beautiful virtues of Christ found front to back, all the way through the word of God. (and have many times before here too because I am not ashamed of the Christ of the Bible).
But I am not here for your ruler and hatchet to look for faults in what I say, no matter how well I quote it and in context and right application.
Get over yourself and be a human being.
anon 6:15
"“Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”"
and he also established his See at Antioch and made the bishop of Antioch his
successor in the primacy."
primacy of honor is not primacy of rule. Yes Peter was in Rome, but he was not
bishop when he died, he passed that on before he died. Paul DID overtly mention
Peter, when he described in Galatians how he had to rebuke him.
Nicea I lists the zones of jurisdictions, and Rome is not over all but has its own
turf as does Alexandria and Antioch.
"Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
elsewhere there is a canon forbidding going "across the sea" i.e., to Rome, to drag
a dispute there. apparently some found it useful to exploit - and therefore to
encourage exaltation above its place - Rome's status to their advantage. This of
course was not about Ecumenical Councils NONE OF WHICH WERE CALLED BY A POPE.
(before you correct me, I am not counting as legitimate councils anything in the
west called "ecumenical" after AD 1054 and none of the original councils were in
the west.)
Constantinople wasn't in play at that point. contrary to the pdf against Rome
which claimed that Constantinople challenged Rome which it did not, it challenged
Alexandria for second place.
Plus, there has been more than one anonymous, but you are equally nasty to all.
Hey Christine! God can take care of it all. Maybe you should chill like Chewbacca.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/chewbacca-the-sloth-eats-carrots-video_n_3306806.html
if I refute a position, challenge someone's intentions and agenda
when a pattern shows such exist, or show their application of Scripture is
wrong because contradicted by Scripture and especially if I challenge someone
to prove they ARE Christian when they claim I am not really a Christian i.e.,
don't really know Jesus Christ and they refuse to answer or answer equivocally
in a way that can be interpreted to mean anything, I am nasty.
I haven't cussed anyone out in a few months now I think.
Good.
Try some kindness.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you can never be overdone.
Hope you liked the video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-s8v81ZkeU&index=14&list=PLbp2rBmJXQp3fYiwZ6-xlz-7BdcXLgC_n
The Orthodox take on the papacy
Anonymous 4:52
Re:"Interestingly, I posted something similar a few months ago about Paul publicly rebuking Peter for shamefully disassociating from Gentiles when he spotted some Jews on the way."
Ah.....The absurd anti-Catholic fantasy of Saint Paul rebuking Saint Peter in Galatians II as a "proof" against the papacy which is often conjured up anew in our own time.
Calvin called it "another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome."
Please!
The Church does not teach that Peter, or any other pope, is perfect and without fault. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a seriously flawed understanding of papal infallibility.
FYI, there have been other cases of laymen and saints rebuking Popes. St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Bernard Clairvaux immediately come into mind as examples of such saints who admonished Popes. Their rebukes didn't invalidate the papacy any more than St. Paul's rebuke ( of Peter's hypocritical behavior ) did. For example, St. Catherine of Siena - the person who singlehandedly ended the Avignon exile of the successors of Peter in the 14th century - never hesitated to rebuke the Pope - albeiut respectfully - when she saw fit.
Re:"I also asked why was it that Paul authored something like 70% of the New Testament if Peter was as important as they claim."
I guess you must have missed the passage in the Bible that explicitly says that Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter and not Paul.
Not only that, but there is a qualitative difference between the Epistles which St. Paul wrote and the Gospels. Quantity does not take priority over quality.
An epistle is a letter written to a person or a church or a group of people. A gospel is a historical account of the life of the Lord Jesus.
The Acts of the Apostles is the story of what the early church did immediately after the resurrection of Jesus and is generally attributed to St. Luke.
The Book of Revelations (Apocalypse) is a book of visions, instructing the churches about their own situations and what was to come.
P.S. St. Mark, the inspired author of one of the Gospels, was believed to have been St. Peter's interpreter and later became Bishop of Alexandria.
Evidence for Mark's authorship of the Gospel that bears his name originates with Papias, an Apostolic Father and Bishop of Hierapolis. According to Irenaeus, Papias was "an ancient man" as well as a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp who was Bishop of Smyrna and eventually martyred.
"I guess you must have missed the passage in the Bible that explicitly says that Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter and not Paul."
I guess you must have missed the passage where Jesus gives the same binding
and loosing power to all the Apostles later. John 20:21-23
Just remember what was posted in a comment following the Saturday, June 13, 2015 lead article.
"Constance Cumbey said...
Christine Erickson,
I love you and you are generous in deed and spirit, BUT, let's REMEMBER the principle of K-I-S-S -- "KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE." Leave out the insults, use the spelling checker, ie, check the grammar and don't trade insults with those petty enough to give them.
11:07"
Constance Cumbey said she loves Christine. No doubt it is Christian love. It is said love is blind. She said those who criticize Christine are petty. That says it all. No one can get past that roadblock to knowledge about the New Age movement. Remember that and save your sanity.
It seems planned. With Christine around covering Constance's back, Constance here remains the queen of New Age information, as scanty as it is, delivering with calm demeanor, while everyone else appears out of control or worth ignoring. And so New Age leadership wins the battle.
Not independently of Peter He didn't.
I haven't missed either passage. Maybe YOU need to reread BOTH passages and pay careful attention as you read. Nothing about the Keys of the kingdom in John:20:21-23 which reads:
21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” John 20:21-23.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus is speaking to Peter when he says:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19
According to the Catholic interpretation, the "binding and loosing power" and the Keys of the kingdom of heaven" are not quite the same thing.
"Binding and loosing" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.
This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.
In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives this authority over his Church to Peter: "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven."
In Matthew 18:18, he gives the power to all the apostles: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This singling out of Peter to bestow on him an authority which is later to be given to all the apostles shows Peter's preeminence within the apostolic college. What the apostles as a whole possessed as leaders of the Church, Peter possessed as an individual.
Of course, he, as the earthly head of the Church, also possessed powers which all the other apostles, even collectively, didn't possess: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 16:19).
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-phrase-binding-and-loosing-as-mentioned-in-matthew-1619-and-matthew-181
My 9:12 comment was addressed to you Christine @8:21P.M..
23“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” John 20:21-23.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus is speaking to Peter when he says:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19
notice that the binding and loosing power is what comes from the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, what are the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This is then given
to the rest of them and each of them has them equally for all received them.
Peter was the first to recognize Who Jesus really is, the others took longer.
If your last paragraph at 10:01 P.M. is true Christine, then that's let's all the hot air out of 9:12 P.M.s balloon!
Christine 10:01,
That may be your interpretation, but a according to Catholic teaching, the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is the delegated authority given by Christ to PETER, not the other Apostles. It indicates that Peter has been given primacy over the Apostles.
The phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope.
Notice that this bestowal of delegated authority APART FROM THE OTHER APOSTLES is because it was to PETER, and not the other Apostles, that the Father revealed that Jesus was "the Christ the Son of the living God." It was Jesus Himself who said that "flesh and blood" had not revealed this to Peter.....that there is no way that Peter could have naturally known this since he did not have direct access to the mind of God.
Notice also that it was only Peter who received a new name from Chrst (from Simon to Peter). A new name signals a new mission. Thus, when Jesus gave Simon a new name, He was setting him apart from the other twelve apostles and bestowing on him a special function. This simple name change alone would have signaled to those apostles and first-century Jews that Jesus was giving Peter an important role to play in His kingdom.
By the way, even Photius acknowledged the primacy of Peter before allowing his ambition to outrun his scruples and going into schism.
It should be remembered that for the first time in Byzantine history Bishops who later became supporters of Photius had appealed against the judgment of Patriarch Ignatius - which they regarded as unjustified - to the first Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome. What needs to be stressed here is the FACT that the Byzantine Church, in consenting to the judgment of her Patriarch by the legates of the Pope, thus recognized Rome as the supreme tribunal of the Church in disciplinary matters. It does not matter if the legates were or were not authorized by Pope Nicholas I to pronounce judgment. The fact that the Byzantine Church allowed them to do so is in itself eloquent enough and at the beginning of the Synod the legates repeatedly proclaimed that they were proceeding according to the Canons of Sardica, which declared the Pope to be the ultimate authority in the Church.
Quite an indictment of the state of affairs in the health industry
Tuesday, June, 23, 2015
theopenscroll.blogspot.com
primacy in Latin may mean supremacy but it is merely primacy of honor
in the Greek concept. Peter WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE TO GET ANOTHER NAME
some other Apostles had multiple names and Jesus called John and his
brother "Sons of Thunder"
one of the popes said that whoever would claim the title universal
bishop was forerunner to the antichrist, because Peter was not the
universal apostle and all that, the term ecumenical patriarch got put
on the Constantinople patriarch by the Ottoman in the millet system.
all kinds of stuff zigged and zagged between Rome and Constantinople.
the fact remains that Rome did not have universal jurisdiction as
the Nicea canon shows, that turning to something classy to support a
position is a predictable move.
When Constantinople was to be added to the patriarchy pentarchy, it was
argued that it should be the second city in the church displacing
Alexandria because rome had primacy in the church because it was first
city in the empire so Constantinople should have secondary status because
it was second city in the empire.
this upset Alexandria. Rome was in some way closer to north Africa that
the other places and it supported Alexandria in the squabble. so it didn't
sign off on Chalcedon canon 28, WHICH DID NOT STOP THE REST OF THE CHURCH
FROM CONSIDERING CANON 28 V ALID AND OKAY SINCE THE OTHER PATRIARCHS AND
BISHOPS SIGNED OFF ON IT. Rome didn't have that much authority, only one
vote.
The next Ecumenical Council settled it, rome caved in and Constantinople
was admitted as the second city and Alexandria put down to third.
note on caving in, Rome caved in in that it stopped protesting,
the admission and positioning of Constantinople was accomplished
with Chalcedon canon 28 being accepted by the rest.
Rome could only cast one vote, one among not just the other
patriarchs but among all the bishops attending. Toadying and
jockeying behavior playing on reputation of and caterging to
ego of some person or organization should not be taken as
absolute indication of what was the reality rather as part of
what led to the later outrage of roman claims.
http://www.churchpop.com/2015/05/14/what-changed-this-protestants-mind-about-the-eucharist/
http://www.churchpop.com/2015/06/22/behold-the-oldest-church-in-the-world/
While the troops fight amongst themselves, the New Age leadership wins the war.
Hey Christine, you can interpret Christianity any way you like, but not only is it not convincing anyone here, but it also hints that you might be having doubts about what you believe yourself.
By the way, the Catholics are not the ones who started this argument. They rarely are.
I have checked in on this blog off and on since 2010 and I've noticed that there a few people that used to post frequently that I haven't seen for a very long time.
Does anyone know what happened to JD, Savvy and Dave from Battlecreek?
Don't know them personally but was wondering if everything was ok.
I was talking with a friend who looks in here occasionally. She couldn't stop laughing when she read posters here were discussing God's penis and wondering who got beheaded 2,000 years ago. She said it makes New Age woo woo look sane.
Savvy joined a nunnery which keeps her very busy full time JD dropped his interest due to life style changes which now focus on his children. He can be reached through Facebook. Dorothy is still involved and puts information on Facebook. Two other regulars post here. One by another name and one occasionally anonymously. That old gang is pretty much broken up.
"Anonymous said...
I was talking with a friend who looks in here occasionally. She couldn't stop laughing when she read posters here were discussing God's penis and wondering who got beheaded 2,000 years ago. She said it makes New Age woo woo look sane.
4:04 PM"
maybe I should go ahead and let people say stupid stuff and not correct them
except after a while in one post if that is the effect.
Thanks Anon 4:44
"according to Catholic teaching, the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" is the delegated authority given by Christ to PETER, not the other Apostles"
Comparison of the relevant passage (Matthew 16:13-19) with Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 shows that the keys (and promises) were for all the disciples.
"But let it be noted here, that, so far from being “the mother and mistress” of
even the Western Churches, Rome herself is a mission of the Greeks;2 Southern Gaul
is evangelized from Asia Minor, and Lyons checks the heretical tendencies of the Bishop at Rome. Ante-Nicene Christianity, and indeed the Church herself, appears in
Greek costume which lasts through the synodical period; and Latin Christianity,
when it begins to appear, is African, and not Roman. It is strange that those who
have recorded this great historical fact have so little perceived its bearings upon
Roman pretensions in the Middle Ages and modern times."
Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies from Ante Nicene Fathers vol. I
Indeed, Tertullian is called "the father of Latin Christianity." Tertullian was
an extreme rigorist and ended up joining the very ascetic but heretical as well
as (suspiciously from the perspective of orthodox obersvers) hysterical and ecstatic
Montanists.
Exactly 5:07 AM.
glancing at Tom Horn's article on News with Views, I see a Cherokee is a guide
on Apache and/or Navajo turf, does this make sense? well, he's supposedly a
Christian so maybe God arranged it.....
but then we get to the Anasazi and the disappearance and how the party line is
they migrated and became the hopi, and the Navajo medicine man tells him this
other story from his ancestors and there is puzzlement by Horn about what were
they defending against?
newsflash, the Hopi and Zuni took to the hills to build their pueblos as a
defensive position, because of the arrival of Apaches and Navajo who the Hope
called "head bashers" because in those days their weapon of choice was the club.
Navajo and to a lesser extent Apache culture became influenced by the Hopi and
Zuni. Whether this was before or after pacification by the American Army I don't
know.
Whatever the wrongs or rights of the Indians war in the southwest, when the dust
settled the Hopi and Zuni were safer, and were never conducting themselves as far
as I recall reading in ways that would draw fire.
http://trisagionfilms.com/2014/09/09/prayer-to-the-theotokos/
Vatican Signs Treaty With State Of Palestine
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?=33757
Well, from a point of logic, if God took Enoch, Moses, Elijah to heaven, why NOT Mary too?
I heard David in Battle Creek went and became a fiction writer, but is still very aware of what's happening. He, much like JD, became focused on home and family. Then, he went a became a Scout Den Leader because of his son's involvement. Events are happening at such a fast pace, it's overwhelming and discouraging (including some of the directions the Scouts have taken and are contemplating). His biggest question is when...when will it all come together? When will the storm finally arrive? Only God knows.
DBC
there have always been storms and there probably will be storms before
the big storm. we keep our focus on Christ like Peter when he stepped out
of the boat onto the water, but then he saw the storm and the waves and
began to sink because he took his eyes literally, in our case figuratively,
off Jesus. And he cried out "Lord help me!" and Jesus pulled him out of
the water. Matt. 14:22-33, John 6:15-21.
America is not God's chosen land and people and does not have any mystical
special relationship to God that any country couldn't have by way of focus
on Jesus Christ, which focus was always compromised on a collective and
leadership to some extent level.
Jesus said "in this world you WILL have tribulation, but be of good cheer,
I have overcome the world." John 16:33
michael kors outlet store
ugg boots
coach outlet clearance
longchamp handbag
dior sunglasses
michael kors handbags
adidas trainers
mcm outlet
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
adidas wings shoes
fitflops shoes
michael kors outlet clearance
air max 90
louis vuitton outlet stores
michael kors outlet online store
coach outlet online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet online
cartier uk
louis vuitton pas cher
toms outlet
canada goose jackets
toms shoes
adidas outlet store
reebok shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
fitflops clearance
ugg outlet
adidas nmd runner
coach outlet store
longchamp pliage
cheap uggs
michael kors outlet
ugg outlet
czq20160824
They was no letter J in any language until 2000years after the the messiah's death and resurrection the is still no letter J the the Hebrew language today
Post a Comment