Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
EWTN ^ | November 1998 | Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger & Bishop Tarcisio Bertone

Posted on 08/21/2007 5:01:42 PM PDT by NYer

1. At this moment in the Church's life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".1

In answer to the Holy Father's invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996. Its Proceedings have recently been published.2

2. In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: "The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter".3 In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy. In preparing the present text, which appears in the Appendix of the above-mentioned Proceedings,4 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has used the contributions of the scholars who took part in the symposium, but without intending to offer a synthesis of them or to go into questions requiring further study. These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ's great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities.

 

I. Origin, Purpose and Nature of the Primacy

3. "First Simon, who is called Peter".5 With this significant emphasis on the primacy of Simon Peter, St Matthew inserts in his Gospel the list of the Twelve Apostles, which also begins with the name of Simon in the other two synoptic Gospels and in Acts.6 This list, which has great evidential force, and other Gospel passages7 show clearly and simply that the New Testament canon received what Christ said about Peter and his role in the group of the Twelve.8 Thus, in the early Christian communities, as later throughout the Church, the image of Peter remained fixed as that of the Apostle who, despite his human weakness, was expressly assigned by Christ to the first place among the Twelve and was called to exercise a distinctive, specific task in the Church. He is the rock on which Christ will build his Church;9 he is the one, after he has been converted, whose faith will not fail and who will strengthen his brethren;10 lastly, he is the Shepherd who will lead the whole community of the Lord's disciples. 11

In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom.

4. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,14 enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors",15 we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., "the unity of faith and communion" 16 of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" 17 and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission. 18

5. The Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council indicated the purpose of the Primacy in its Prologue and then dedicated the body of the text to explaining the content or scope of its power. The Second Vatican Council, in turn, reaffirmed and completed the teaching of Vatican I,19 addressing primarily the theme of its purpose, with particular attention to the mystery of the Church as Corpus Ecclesiarum.20 This consideration allowed for a clearer exposition of how the primatial office of the Bishop of Rome and the office of the other Bishops are not in opposition but in fundamental and essential harmony.21

Therefore, "when the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also 'vicars and ambassadors of Christ' (Lumen gentium, n. 27). The Bishop of Rome is a member of the 'College', and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry".22 It should also be said, reciprocally, that episcopal collegiality does not stand in opposition to the personal exercise of the primacy nor should it relativize it.

6. All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum23 as members of the Episcopal College which has succeeded to the College of the Apostles, to which the extraordinary figure of St Paul also belonged. This universal dimension of their episkope (overseeing) cannot be separated from the particular dimension of the offices entrusted to them.24 In the case of the Bishop of Rome - Vicar of Christ in the way proper to Peter as Head of the College of Bishops25 - the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires particular force because it is combined with the full and supreme power in the Church:26 a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all pastors and other faithful.27 The ministry of Peter's Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which "the Church of Christ is truly present and active",28 and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome's ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church.29

The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.30

 

II. The Exercise of the Primacy and Its Forms

7. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood - so that it "may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency"31 - on the basis of the Gospel, that is, on its essential place in the saving mystery of Christ and the building-up of the Church. The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies:32 it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a primacy of honour, or be conceived as a political monarchy.

The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.33 The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.

8. The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself Since the episcopacy is "one and undivided"34 the primacy of the Pope implies the authority effectively to serve the unity of all the Bishops and all the faithful, and "is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life";35 on these levels, by the will of Christ, everyone in the Church - Bishops and the other faithful - owe obedience to the Successor of Peter, who is also the guarantor of the legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West.

9. Given its episcopal nature, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is first of all expressed in transmitting the Word of God; thus it includes a specific, particular responsibility for the mission of evangelization,36 since ecclesial communion is something essentially meant to be expanded: "Evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity".37

The Roman Pontiff's episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal magisterial office;38 it is an office that involves a charism: the Holy Spirit's special assistance to the Successor of Peter, which also involves., in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility.39 Just as "all the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ",40 in the same way the Bishops are witnesses of divine and Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff.41

10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter's Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: "prima sedes a nemine iudicatur".42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.

11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, "every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it",43 as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See.

12. "The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing".44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter's Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world.

The concrete contents of its exercise distinguish the Petrine ministry insofar as they faithfully express the application of its ultimate purpose (the unity of the Church) to the circumstances of time and place. The greater or lesser extent of these concrete contents will depend in every age on the necessitas Ecclesiae. The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit's voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.

Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff, and, vice versa, the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy.

13. In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find with the grace of the Holy Spirit - the energy to live and faithfully maintain full and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ.45

15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry "in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith".46 The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly "that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is -- in God's plan -- an essential requisite of full and visible communion".47 Human errors and even serious failings can be found in the history of the papacy: Peter himself acknowledged he was a sinner.48 Peter, a weak man, was chosen as the rock precisely so that everyone could see that victory belongs to Christ alone and is not the result of human efforts. Down the ages the Lord has wished to put his treasure in fragile vessels:49 human frailty has thus become a sign of the truth of God's promises.

When and how will the much-desired goal of the unity of all Christians be reached? "How to obtain it? Through hope in the Spirit, who can banish from us the painful memories of our separation. The Spirit is able to grant us clear-sightedness, strength, and courage to take whatever steps are necessary, that our commitment may be ever more authentic".50 We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter.

 

NOTES:

1. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995, n. 95.

2. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro, Atti del Simposio teologico, Rome, 2-4 December 1996, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1998.

3. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in ibid., p. 20.

4. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, Considerazioni della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in ibid., Appendix, pp. 493-503. The text was also published as a booklet by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

5. Mt 10:2.

6. Cf. Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1: 13.

7. Cf. Mt 14:28-31; 16:16-23 and par.; 19:27-29 and par.; 26:33-35 and par.; Lk 22:32; Jn 1:42; 6:67-70; 13:36-38; 21:15-19.

8. Evidence for the Petrine ministry is found in all the expressions, however different, of the New Testament tradition, both in the Synoptics - here with different features in Matthew and Luke, as well as in St Mark - and in the Pauline corpus and the Johannine tradition, always with original elements, differing in their narrative aspects but in profound agreement about their essential meaning. This is a sign that the Petrine reality was regarded as a constitutive given of the Church.

9. Cf. Mt 16:18.

10. Cf. Lk 22:32.

11. Cf. Jn 21:15-17. Regarding the New Testament evidence on the primacy, cf. also John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, nn. 90ff.

12. St Ambrose of Milan, Enarr. in Ps., 40, 30: PL 14, 1134.

13. Cf. for example St Siricius I, Let. Directa ad decessorem, 10 February 385: Denz-Hun, n. 181; Second Council of Lyons, Professio fidei of Michael Palaeologus, 6 July 1274: Denz-Hun, n. 861; Clement VI, Let. Super quibusdam, 29 November 1351: Denz-Hun, n. 1053; Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307; Pius IX, Encyc. Let. Qui pluribus, 9 November 1846: Denz-Hun, n. 2781; First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 2: Denz-Hun, nn. 3056-3058; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, Chap. 111, nn. 21-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882; etc.

14. Cf. St Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Romanos, Introd.: SChr 10, 106-107; St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 2: SChr 211, 32-33.

15. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 20.

16. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051. Cf. St Leo I the Great, Tract. in Natale eiusdem, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19.

17. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051; John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 88. Cf. Pius IX, Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishops of England, 16 November 1864: Denz-Hun, n. 2888; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, nn. 3305-3310.

18. Cf. Jn 17:21-23; Second Vatican Council, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1; Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December 1975, n. 77: AAS 68 (1976) 69; John Paul Il, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 98.

19. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n 18.

20. Cf. ibid., n. 23.

21. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3061; cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, nn. 3112-3113; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, n. 3310; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 27. As Pius IX explained in his Address after the promulgation of the Constitution Pastor aeternus: "Summa ista Romani Pontificis auctoritas, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit sed adiuvat, non destruit sed aedificat, et saepissime confirmat in dignitate, unit in caritate, et Fratrum, scificet Episcoporum, iura firmat atque tuetur" (Mansi 52, 1336 A/B).

22. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 95.

23. Cor 11:28.

24. The ontological priority that the universal Church has, in her essential mystery, over every individual particular Church (cf Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, 28 May 1992, n. 9) also emphasizes the importance of the universal dimension of every Bishop's ministry.

25.Bull Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3059; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22; cf. Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307.

26. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, nn. 3060, 3064.

27. Cf. ibid.; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22.

28. Second Vatican Council, Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 1l.

29. Cf. Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 13.

30. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9.

31. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 93.

32. Cf. ibid., n. 94.

33. Cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, n. 3114.

34. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz.-Hun, n. 3051.

35. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

36. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Grande munus, 30 November 1880: ASS 13 (1880) 145; CIC, can. 782, §1.

37. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 14. Cf. CIC, can. 781.

38. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 4: Denz-Hun, nn. 3065-3068.

39. Cf. ibid.: Denz-Hun, 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25; CIC, can. 749, §1; CCEO, can. 597, §1.

40. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

41. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25.

42. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063.

43. Congr. for the Doctrine of the, Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 14. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1369.

44. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 48.

45. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const., Lumen gentium, n. 15.

46. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 97.

47. Ibid.

48. Cf. Lk 5:8.

49. Cf. 2 Cor 4:7.

50. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 102.




TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; papacy; peter; pope; primacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-176 next last

1 posted on 08/21/2007 5:01:52 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer
This link has Scripture references also!

The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

2 posted on 08/21/2007 5:04:53 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.

When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).

The Primacy of Peter

Let those who have eyes ... read and those who have ears ... hear.

3 posted on 08/21/2007 5:05:21 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Jesus wanted all to be one not local fellowship groups. Check out John 17. Jesus believed in teaching through people, weaknesses and all. If Jesus wanted a book to guide us, He would have written it.
4 posted on 08/21/2007 5:09:28 PM PDT by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
5 posted on 08/21/2007 5:09:33 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Peter’s Primacy

The Primacy of Peter

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

6 posted on 08/21/2007 5:19:25 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
If Jesus wanted a book to guide us, He would have written it.

Absolutely right!

Imagine those 1st century martyrs who learned about Jesus through oral tradition and went to their death, chanting hymns and singing prayers, in the Coliseum. Some of them were turned into living torches, mothers and children were fed to hungry beasts - while still alive! - still others were crucified - all for the pleasure of the citizens of Rome. Not one of them had a Bible! The New Testament had not yet been written!

7 posted on 08/21/2007 5:22:12 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The Catholic church has always twisted scripture to try to claim legitamcy.

Jesus calling Peter the rock on which He would build His Church is absurd.

Matthew 16

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The subject of which Christ speaking is the revealing of His divinity by His Father in heaven through the Holy Ghost.

This is the rock Christ is speaking of that the gates of hell won't prevail against. Not Peter...

Peter was murdered...

But personal revelation from our Father in Heaven is eternal...which the gates of hell will not prevail againt.

8 posted on 08/21/2007 5:28:02 PM PDT by ForEternity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 10:4)

9 posted on 08/21/2007 5:29:53 PM PDT by ForEternity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Where do you find these?

In this time of disturbance, this is solace to me. Thanks.


10 posted on 08/21/2007 5:36:17 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Not one of them had a Bible! The New Testament had not yet been written!

The Bible is a collection of writings. The early followers of Christ had all the writings that had been passed down from generation to generation. They had been kept by the Jews.

They had far more than what we call the Bible today.

Those who created the church of rome discarded all but the few we have today.

11 posted on 08/21/2007 5:37:26 PM PDT by ForEternity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Do I read your comment to mean that you don’t believe God inspired the writing of the gospels and the other New Testament Books? ... I’m frankly astonished! Jesus did write for us a text, through the hands of the Apostles and disciples! Even Peter dictated his witness to be written down for us. Do you seriously presume that Jesus didn’t write this witness in the person of the Holy Spirit?


12 posted on 08/21/2007 5:52:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity

But, but, but ... where then is the boasting?


13 posted on 08/21/2007 5:54:58 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity

Here is some additional scripture for you to peruse.

Mt 16:18-19 ... Jesus gives Peter primacy: rock, keys, binding and loosing.
Is 22:22; Rev 1:18 ... keys as symbol of authority.
Jn 21:17 ... “feed my sheep”
Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32 ... Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle.
Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:68-69 ... Peter speaks for the apostles.
Acts 2:14-40 ... Pentecost: Peter who first preached.
Acts 3:6-7 ... Peter worked first healing.
Acts 10:46-48 ... Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter.
Jn 1:42 ... Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).
Lk 22:31-32 ... “Simon ... strengthen your brethren”.
Lk 10:1-2, 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5 ... “vicars” (substitutes) of Christ.
Mk 6:20; Lk 1:70,2:23; Rom 12:1; Act 3:21, 1 Cor 7:14; Eph 3:5; Col 1:22 ... humans can be holy (“call no one holy”).


14 posted on 08/21/2007 5:55:58 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity

They had a lot of oral tradition. Nothing was written down until the apostles starting dying off in the years, 80 or 90.


15 posted on 08/21/2007 5:57:44 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, I guess since Peter was Bishop of Antioch FIRST, then that blows Rome’s claim out of the water.

The only “primacy” that Rome ever had was “primus inter pares”..............

Nothing else.


16 posted on 08/21/2007 6:00:38 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (The Orthodox Church....preserving the Truth since 1054 AD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity

Very good. And since the Rock is Christ, and Christ Himself renamed Simon to Peter (Rock), it should be no great strain to see the significance of this particular renaming: namely, that Simon Peter was to be the Rock acting in the place of The Rock after the Ascension. *Someone* fleshly has to lead the Church, after all! Even with a visible head, look how contentious we all are! How much more tenuous would the fidelity to the Truth be if we were “on our own” in discerning the Spirit from the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost!

Whenever God renames someone in the Bible (Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, and Simon/Peter, for example), there is a rather blunt significance to it. You might do well to consider this before trotting-out the well-worn and grammatically impossible argument that the renaming is based on Peter’s confession, and not on the fact of his foundational status, upon which the Church of Jesus Christ would be built.


17 posted on 08/21/2007 6:11:51 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

Well, then, according to your own argument, it should be Antioch, not Rome, that enjoys the status of “primus inter pares.” Why is that not so, from an Orthodox POV?


18 posted on 08/21/2007 6:14:12 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

Because Orthodoxy recognizes that the Imperial City was given that honor. Peter had nothing to do with that.

The primacy of Peter is a Roman/Latin innovation. NOT Orthodox.


19 posted on 08/21/2007 6:18:31 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (The Orthodox Church....preserving the Truth since 1054 AD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity

“...the church of Rome discarded all but the few we have today.”

What on earth are you talking about? Usually around here, we Catholics are accused of having too many OT books as it is; now you’re saying we threw (presumably) many out? Or are you saying that there should be more NT books than there are? If so, then please name the ones you think should be added to the canon of Scripture, along with your reasons why they should be canonical.

You clearly demonstrate no knowledge of how or when the canon of Scripture came to be. It did not simply fall out of the sky ready-made, nor was it determined at some date after October 31, 1517. And the 1st Century Christians, the discussion of whom prompted your response I’m citing here, certainly had *no* compilation of Scripture along the lines of the New Testament we have today. Many were dead before even half of it was written, and , in any event, none of them would have had, in the 1st Century, anything like all 27 books. It took a *long* time in those days to print and disseminate anything for common use by all; most Christian communities had maybe a Gospel and a few Pauline letters, and this would be after the 60’s AD. They would have had even less or nothing at all of the NT earlier than that. Though, certainly, all of the NT had been written by the end of the 1st Century, it wasn’t until well into the 2nd Century that *most* of the NT would likely be in the hands of a given Christian community, and the exact number and roll of the 27 books involved would vary considerably. The canon wasn’t finally a settled matter until the turn of the 5th Century.


20 posted on 08/21/2007 6:32:01 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer
In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom.

There seems to be something missing here ...hmmmm ..... what could it be??? ...... oh yeh. What happened to that legendary 25 year Roman Bishopric that we all used to read so much about??? And there is nothing about his ever being bishop of of Rome at all or even residing there, just his presence and martyrdom, that's all.

How legends fall. What part of this legend will fall next to biblical and historical reality???

21 posted on 08/21/2007 6:36:39 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Yes, I know that argument about Rome being the imperial city. But your post #16 said flatly that, Peter being first at Antioch, Rome’s claim is “blown out of the water.” There is an inconsistency here that I’d like better fleshed-out. Which is it? Rome is, for the sake of argument, (merely) primus inter pares because Peter was there, or Antioch should have been primus inter pares on the grounds that Peter was there first? If Antioch’s claims blow those of Rome out of the water, why does Orthodoxy (I assume you’re speaking for Orthodoxy here) even pay minimal lip service to the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome?
22 posted on 08/21/2007 6:40:04 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
They had a lot of oral tradition. Nothing was written down until the apostles starting dying off in the years, 80 or 90.

They had a lot of the Old Testament out of which Jesus had taught them, and the Book of James was written circa 45 AD, Matthew's Gospel, Thessalonians and Galatians circa 51 AD and those all started circulating immediately.

23 posted on 08/21/2007 6:55:25 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
No, the letters being written back and forth between the established churches were much earlier than 80 or 90, and the writers were no more than ten to fifteen years from the actual events, perhaps even closer since most of the letters we have now in manuscripts are copies made within two decades of the originals. Scholars also have the Ethiopic, Syriac, and Arabic texts which are copies transcribed into those languages and give color to the meaning conveyed by the writers of the original letters.
24 posted on 08/21/2007 6:59:03 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

With the time required from 4 to 6 months in hand copying a Bible with the Old and New Testaments - now this is the complete one, mind you - how many Bibles do you think that the primitive and relatively poor Christian Church had circulating?


25 posted on 08/21/2007 7:29:49 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; xzins; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan
Peter was of course married, but that is something Rome has decided to do away with in it's tradition.
26 posted on 08/21/2007 7:39:13 PM PDT by Gamecock ("Peace if possible, truth at all costs." Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Where did you read that? The Catholic Church has never denied the marriage of St. Peter.


27 posted on 08/21/2007 7:45:33 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

No saying ya’ll have.

But you seem to cling to the idea that St Pete was the first pope, but deny a Priest the right to marry.

Seems very inconsistent.


28 posted on 08/21/2007 7:47:21 PM PDT by Gamecock ("Peace if possible, truth at all costs." Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

It’s not inconsistent at all. It’s a discipline, not a doctrine.


29 posted on 08/21/2007 7:49:55 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; NYer; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; xzins; P-Marlowe

Did you ever notice that some of the last words of Jesus to Peter were “mind your own business”? By the way, what were you two guys looking at? It looks like a NASA anomaly.


30 posted on 08/21/2007 7:50:47 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

OK:

Let me break it down for you.

1. Antioch, by ROMAN belief should have primacy, as St. Peter was Bishop THERE first. (NOT ORTHODOX)

2. Primus inter pares was given to the Bishop of the IMPERIAL CITY. Rome was the Imperial Capitol of the empire, so that title had nothing to do with Rome’s claim of primacy by virtue of Peter. Later, the title was given to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Last, but not least, my point in all this is that the doctrine of Peterine Primacy is an invention of the Western, or Latin Church, mainly based on the spurious writings of Clement, and that other than being the “First among EQUALS”, there was no universal authority conferred on Rome.


31 posted on 08/21/2007 8:01:10 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (The Orthodox Church....preserving the Truth since 1054 AD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ForEternity
The subject of which Christ speaking is the revealing of His divinity by His Father in heaven through the Holy Ghost.

You would, I guess, think that the Holy Ghost would do this by means of a Book. But why this indirection? If the Bible is that instrument, then why didn't Jesus himself write it, or dictate it to a scribe as Jermiah did,or bring down tablets ofstone as Moses did? Or do you mean that the Holy Spirit speaks to each of his chosen ones?

32 posted on 08/21/2007 8:14:28 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Furthermore, the concept of the Bible as a book--a single volume about the size of the ones we use today was not actualized until the 13th century, with the publication of the manuscript "Paris" Bible, a version of the Vulgate which saw very wide distribution and use by the preaching friars of Europe.
33 posted on 08/21/2007 8:20:32 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
The preeminence of the Church of Rome is spoken of. Jerusalem might have held that position except for the catastrophe that hit that city. Rome was indeed the imperial city, and remained so until Constantine divided that honors by establishing Constantinople. But the prestige of Roman Church was already well established by the second century because of its association with Peter and Paul. It was no accident that men like Marcion ended up in Rome. That where the center of the action was, even though the Christian population of the East was always far greater than that in the West. As for the universal authority, it was at first based on the prestige of the Roman Church, rather than any judicial authority. You don’t like Clement, but note the tone is authoritative but not legalistic.Three hundred and fifty years later, Leo I often spoke as a man accustomed to the exercise of civil authority; So did Cyril, but eastern bishops increasingly forewent this role while it grew every more important in the West.
34 posted on 08/21/2007 8:48:22 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
The Catholic Church never denied that Peter was married. That is true since we know he had a mother-in-law. But what no one can establish with any degree of certainty is whether or not he was married when Christ chose him.

Since my mother-in-law outlived my husband by about 25 years I am of the mind to believe Peter's wife predeceased her mother and Peter as well.

It is also interesting that after Christ healed the mother-in-law,she got right up and started serving the "men". What self respecting daughter would have allowed that? hmm?

35 posted on 08/21/2007 11:04:56 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
I love that last gospel of John,it so clearly shows Christ telling Peter to feed the lambs and the sheep. And after giving him charge,He lets Peter know how to accomplish this feeding and tending.

Twice He tells Peter to follow Him,the second time was a response to Peter's concern about John. Christ said Peter was not to worry about what those behind him were doing as long as Peter kept his eyes on Christ and followed Him,Peter would get all the help he needed.

I have never been able to understand how anyone who read the Bible could doubt that Christ established a Church and put Peter in charge.

36 posted on 08/21/2007 11:23:05 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
With the time required from 4 to 6 months in hand copying a Bible with the Old and New Testaments - now this is the complete one, mind you - how many Bibles do you think that the primitive and relatively poor Christian Church had circulating?

The "primitive and relatively poor" early Christians, who wanted to check what they had been told orally to be the Gospel against the truth would always go to the authority of the written record in the hands of any pastor or in any church in Christendom and read for themselves the original or faithful copies of the letters of James, Paul, Matthew, Luke, Peter as they were being written. And since the Apostles in the early days primarily taught out of the Jewish Scriptures, those were already available in the synagogues in every city.

The scriptures were the title deeds to salvation held in trust in the churches of Achaia, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome and everywhere Christianity went, as Irenaeus and other church fathers also testified to. Tertullian writes:

"I hold sure title deeds from the original owners themselves ... I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament and committed to a trust ... even so I hold".

He wasn't heir of the apostles because someone laid hands on him but because the apostles laid hands on pen and papyrus and wrote letters and gospels, copies of which were now available in every church in Christendom to be read and copied by faithful men.

Apostolic succession was passed down through the scriptures ---- not by the laying of hands on person after person but the laying of hands on papyrus after papyrus. The pastor's right to teach and minister came not from some mystical unprovable "laying on of hands ad infinitum" which was undocumentable and unprovable but by virtue of the copies of the letters of the apostles that they had in front of them and faithfully read and believed. No one could be considered a son of his father without a last will and testament in writing from his father --- thus the scriptures which were originally held in trust for anyone and everyone to read and copy if they so chose.

37 posted on 08/22/2007 4:04:58 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I have no problem with Clement, but the writings attributed to him establishing Primacy were proved to be forgeries.
(By Roman scholars)

Pope Gregory the Great rejected the title of “universal”....
Preminence is not a problem with most Orthodox Christians. The Pope was the “first among equals”, or “chairman of the board” (my analogy)....

One day, maybe he will resume that role, and speed reunion....


38 posted on 08/22/2007 4:33:05 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (The Orthodox Church....preserving the Truth since 1054 AD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; ForEternity; magisterium
Furthermore, the concept of the Bible as a book--a single volume about the size of the ones we use today was not actualized until the 13th century, with the publication of the manuscript "Paris" Bible, a version of the Vulgate which saw very wide distribution and use by the preaching friars of Europe.

Then just exactly was that book belonging to Irenaeus that he called: The Law and The Gospel, and which Tertullian called: The Law and The Prophets with The Gospels and The Apostles, and that all the early church fathers quoted out of on a regular basis, and all those books that Diocletian was burning in his days, and all those books that Constantine and Eusebius and Pamphiliuis sought to replace with their own bible [Vaticanus B, and Sinaiticus], and those books in the churches of the Waldensian's and others that the armies of the Catholic Pontiffs laid their hands on and burned whenever they could?????

39 posted on 08/22/2007 4:44:46 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
It is also interesting that after Christ healed the mother-in-law,she got right up and started serving the "men". What self respecting daughter would have allowed that? hmm?

an appreciative daughter.

40 posted on 08/22/2007 4:49:34 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I found this.This was written around the year 80.
The Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles.

Chap. I.

1. There are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death; but there is a great difference between the two Ways.

2. Now the Way of Life is this: First, Thou shalt love God who made thee; secondly, thy neighbor as thyself; and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thee, neither do thou to another.

3. Now the teaching of these [two] words [of the Lord] is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you; for what thank is there if ye love those who love you? Do not even Gentiles the same? But love ye those who hate you, and ye shall not have an enemy.

4. Abstain from fleshly and bodily [worldly] lusts. If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect. If any one press thee to go with him one mile, go with him two; if any one take away thy cloak, give him also thy tunic; if any one take from thee what is thine, ask it not back, as indeed thou canst not.

5. Give to every one that asketh thee, and ask not back, for the Father wills that from our own blessings we should give to all. Blessed is he that gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless. Woe to him that receives; for if any one receives, having need, he shall be guiltless, but he that has not need shall give account, why he received and for what purpose, and coming into distress he shall be strictly examined concerning his deeds, and he shall not come out thence till he have paid the last farthing.

6. But concerning this also it hath been said, “Let thine alms sweat (drop like sweat) into thy hands till thou know to whom thou shouldst give.”

Chap. II.

1. And the second commandment of the Teaching is:

2. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt boys; thou shalt not commit fornication. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; thou shalt not practice sorcery. Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor shalt thou kill the new-born child. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

3. Thou shalt not forswear thyself (swear falsely). Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not speak evil; thou shalt not bear malice.

4. Thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for duplicity of tongue is a snare of death.

5. Thy speech shall not be false, nor vain, but fulfilled by deed.

6. Thou shalt not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor malignant, nor haughty. Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbor.

7. Thou shalt not hate any one, but some thou shalt rebuke and for some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love above thine own soul (or, life).

Chap. III.

1. My child, flee from every evil, and from every thing that is like unto it.

2. Be not prone to anger, for anger leadeth to murder; nor given to party spirit, nor contentious, nor quick-tempered (or, passionate); for from all these things murders are generated.

3. My child, be not lustful, for lust leadeth to fornication; neither be a filthy talker, nor an eager gazer, for from all these are generated adulteries.

4. My child, be not an observer of birds [for divination] for it leads to idolatry; nor a charmer (enchanter), nor an astrologer, nor a purifier (a user of purifications or expiations), nor be thou willing to look on those things; for from all these is generated idolatry.

5. My child, be not a liar, for lying leads to theft; nor avaricious, nor vainglorious, for from all these things are generated thefts.

6. My child, be not a murmurer, for it leads to blasphemy; neither self-willed (presumptuous), nor evil-minded, for from all these things are generated blasphemies.

7. But be thou meek, for the meek shall inherit the earth.

8. Be thou long-suffering, and merciful, and harmless, and quiet, and good, and trembling continually at the words which thou hast heard.

9. Thou shalt not exalt thyself, nor shalt thou give audacity (presumption) to thy soul. Thy soul shall not be joined to the lofty, but with the just and lowly shalt thou converse.

10. The events that befall thee thou shalt accept as good, knowing that nothing happens without God.

Chap. IV.

1. My child, thou shalt remember night and day him that speaks to thee the word of God, and thou shalt honor him as the Lord, for where the Lordship is spoken of, there is the Lord.

2. And thou shalt seek out day by day the faces of the saints, that thou mayest rest upon their words.

3. Thou shalt not desire (make) division, but shalt make peace between those at strife. Thou shalt judge justly; thou shalt not respect a person (or, show partiality) in rebuking for transgressions.

4. Thou shalt not be double-minded (doubtful in thy mind) whether it shall be or not.

5. Be not one that stretches out his hands for receiving, but draws them in for giving.

6. If thou hast [anything], thou shalt give with thy hands a ransom for thy sins.

7. Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor in giving shalt thou murmur, for thou shalt know who is the good recompenser of the reward.

8. Thou shalt not turn away him that needeth, but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that they are thine own; for if you are fellow-sharers in that which is imperishable (immortal), how much more in perishable (mortal) things?

9. Thou shalt not take away thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter, but from [their] youth up thou shalt teach [them] the fear of God.

10. Thou shalt not in thy bitterness lay commands on thy man-servant (bondman), or thy maid-servant (bondwoman), who hope in the same God, lest they should not fear Him who is God over [you] both; for He comes not to call [men] according to the outward appearance (condition), but [he comes] on those whom the Spirit has prepared.

11. But ye, bondmen, shall be subject to our (your) masters as to the image of God in reverence (modesty) and fear.

12. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy, and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord.

13. Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding [thereto] nor taking away [therefrom].

14. In the congregation (in church) thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and thou shalt not come to thy prayer (or, place of prayer) with an evil conscience.

This is the way of life.

Chap. V.

1. But the way of death is this. First of all it is evil and full of curse; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, sorceries, robberies, false-witnessings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, pride, wickedness, self-will, covetousness, filthy-talking, jealousy, presumption, haughtiness, boastfulness.

2. Persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to that which is good nor to righteous judgment, watchful not for that which is good but for that which is evil; far from whom is meekness and endurance, loving vanity, seeking after reward, not pitying the poor, not toiling with him who is vexed with toil, not knowing Him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from the needy, vexing the afflicted, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, wholly sinful.

May ye, children, be delivered from all these.

Chap. VI.

1. Take heed that no one lead thee astray from this way of teaching, since he teacheth thee apart from God.

2. For if indeed thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord thou shalt be perfect; but if thou art not able, do what thou canst.

3. And as regards food, bear what thou canst, but against idol-offerings be exceedingly on thy guard, for it is a service of dead gods.

Chap. VII.

1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).

3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

4. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before.

Chap. VIII.

1. Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but ye shall fast on the fourth day, and the preparation day (Friday).

2. Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, so pray ye: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily (needful) bread. And forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, from evil). For Thine is the power and the glory for ever.”

3. Pray thus thrice a day.

Chap. IX.

1. Now as regards the Eucharist (the Thank-offering), give thanks after this manner:

2. First for the cup: “We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant: to Thee be the glory for ever.”

3. And for the broken bread: “We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant: to Thee be the glory for ever.

4. “As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and gathered together became one, so let Thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.”

5. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also the Lord has said: “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chap. X.

1. Now after being filled, give thanks after this manner:

2. “We thank Thee, Holy Father, for Thy Holy Name, which Thou hast caused to dwell (tabernacle) in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant, to Thee be the glory for ever.

3. “Thou, O, Almighty Sovereign, didst make all things for Thy Name’s sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.

4. “Before all things we give thanks to Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever.

5. “Remember, O Lord, Thy Church to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in Thy love; and gather her together from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou didst prepare for her; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.

6. “Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If any one is holy let him come, if any one is not holy let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.”

7. But permit the Prophets to give thanks as much as [in what words] they wish.

Chap. XI.

1. Whosoever then comes and teaches you all the things aforesaid, receive him.

2. But if the teacher himself being perverted teaches another teaching to the destruction [of this], hear him not, but if [he teach] to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.

3. Now with regard to the Apostles and Prophets, according to the decree (command) of the gospel, so do ye.

4. Let every Apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord.

5. But he shall not remain [longer than] one day; and, if need be, another [day] also; but if he remain three [days] he is a false prophet.

6. And when the Apostle departeth, let him take nothing except bread [enough] till he reach his lodging (night-quarters). But if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.

7. And every prophet who speaks in the spirit ye shall not try or prove; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

8. Not every one that speaks in the spirit is a Prophet, but only if he has the behavior (the ways) of the Lord. By their behavior then shall the false prophet and the [true] Prophet be known.

9. And no Prophet that orders a table in the spirit eats of it [himself], unless he is a false prophet.

10. And every Prophet who teaches the truth if he does not practice what he teaches, is a false prophet.

11. And every approved, genuine Prophet, who makes assemblies for a worldly mystery, but does not teach [others] to do what he himself does, shall not be judged by you; for he has his judgment with God (or, his judgment is in the hands of God); for so did also the ancient Prophets.

12. But whosoever says in the spirit: Give me money or any other thing, ye shall not listen to him; but if he bid you to give for others that lack, let no one judge him.

Chap. XII.

1. Let every one that comes in the name of the Lord be received, and then proving him ye shall know him; for ye shall have understanding right and left.

2. If indeed he who comes is a wayfarer, help him as much as ye can; but he shall not remain with you longer than two or three days, unless there be necessity.

3. If he wishes to settle among you, being a craftsman (artisan), let him work and eat (earn his living by work).

4. But if he has not handicraft (trade), provide according to your understanding that no Christian shall live idle among you.

5. And if he will not act thus he is a Christ-trafficker. Beware of such.

Chap. XIII.

1. But every true Prophet who wishes to settle among you is worthy of his food (or, support).

2. Likewise a true Teacher is himself worthy, like the workman, of his food.

3. Therefore thou shalt take and give all the first-fruit of the produce of the wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and sheep, to the Prophets; for they are your chief-priests.

4. But if ye have no Prophet, give to the poor.

5. If thou preparest bread, take the first fruit and give according to the commandment.

6. Likewise when thou openest a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give to the Prophets.

7. And of silver, and raiment, and every possession, take the first-fruit, as may seem good to thee, and give according to the commandment.

Chap. XIV.

1. And on the Lord’s Day of the Lord come together, and break bread, and give thanks, having before confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

2. Let no one who has a dispute with his fellow come together with you until they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled.

3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.”

Chap. XV.

1. Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets and Teachers.

2. Therefore despise them not, for they are those that are the honored [men] among you with the Prophets and Teachers.

3. And reprove one another not in wrath, but in peace, as ye have [it] in the gospel; and with every one that transgresses against another let no one speak, nor let him hear [a word] from you until he repents.

4. But so do your prayers and alms and all your actions as ye have [it] in the gospel of our Lord.

Chap. XVI.

1. Watch over your life; let not your lamps be quenched and let not your loins be unloosed, but be ye ready; for ye know not the hour in which our Lord comes.

2. But be ye frequently gathered together, seeking the things that are profitable for your souls; for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except in the last season ye be found perfect.

3. For in the last days the false prophets and destroyers shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate.

4. For when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute, and deliver up one another; and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall commit iniquities which have never yet come to pass from the beginning of the world.

5. And then shall the race of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be offended and shall perish; but they who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself.

6. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first the sign of opening in heaven; then the sign of the voice of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead.

7. Not, however, of all, but as was said, “The Lord shall come, and all the saints with him.”

8. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

41 posted on 08/22/2007 4:50:38 AM PDT by fatima (Baby alert,Baby Ava arrived 6-29-07 at 3 PM-she is 10 pounds:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fatima

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ozM5lyBIRxkJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm+The+Didache&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Didache

(DOCTRINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES)

A short treatise which was accounted by some of the Fathers as next to Holy Scripture. It was rediscovered in 1883 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the codex from which, in 1875, he had published the full text of the Epistles of St. Clement. The title in the manuscript is Didache kyriou dia ton dodeka apostolon ethesin, but before this it gives the heading Didache ton dodeka apostolon. The old Latin translation of cc. i-v, found by Dr. J. Schlecht in 1900, has the longer title, omitting “twelve”, and has a rubric De doctrinâ Apostolorum. For convenience the contents may be divided into three parts: the first is the “Two Ways”, the Way of Life and the Way of Death; the second part is a rituale dealing with baptism, fasting, and Holy Communion; the third speaks of the ministry. Doctrinal teaching is presupposed, and none is imparted.

The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius after the books of Scripture (H. E., III, xxv, 4): “Let there be placed among the spuria the writing of the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle known as that of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also . . . the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought fit . . .” St. Athanasius and Rufinus add the “Teaching” to the sapiential and other deutero-canonical books. (Rufinus gives the curious alternative title “Judicium Petri”.) It has a similar place in the lists of Nicephorus, Pseudo-Anastasius, and Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis). The Pseudo-Cyprianic “Adversus Aleatores” quotes it by name. Unacknowledged citations are very common, if less certain. The “Two Ways” appears in Barnabas, cc. xviii-xx, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barn., iv, 9 is from Didache, xvi, 2-3, or vice versa. Hermas, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen seem to use the work, and so in the West do Optatus and the “Gesta apud Zenophilum”. The Didascalia Apostolorum are founded upon the Didache. The Apostolic church ordinance has used a part, the Apostolic Constitutions have embodied the Didascalia. There are echoes in Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Cyprian, and Lactantius.
CONTENTS
First Part

The Way of Life is the love of God and of our neighbour. The latter only is spoken of at length. We first find the Golden Rule in the negative form (cf. the “Western” text of Acts 15:19 and 29). Then short extracts from the Sermon on the Mount, together with a curious passage on giving and receiving, which is cited with variations by Hermas (Mand., ii, 4-6). The Latin omits ch. i, 3-6 and ch. ii, 1, and these sections have no parallel in Barnabas; they may therefore be a later addition, andHermas and the present text of the Didache may have used a common source, or Hermas may be the original. The second chapter contains the Commandments against murder, adultery, theft, coveting, and false witness — in this order - and additional recommendations depending on these. In ch. iii we are told how one vice leads to another: anger to murder, concupiscence to adultery, and so forth. This section shows some close likenesses to the Babylonian Talmud. The whole chapter is passed over in Barnabas. A number of precepts are added in ch. iv, which ends: “This is the Way of Life.” The Way of Death is a mere list of vices to be avoided (v). Ch. vi exhorts to the keeping in the Way of this Teaching: “If thou canst bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou canst not, do what thou canst. But as for food, bear what thou canst; but straitly avoid things offered to idols; for it is a service of dead gods.” Many take this to be a recommendation to abstain from flesh, as some explain Romans 14:2. But the “let him eat herbs” of St. Paul is a hyperbolical expression like 1 Corinthians 8:13: “I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother”, and gives no support to the notion of vegetarianism in the Early Church. The Didache is referring to Jewish meats. The Latin version substitutes for ch. vi a similar close, omitting all reference to meats and to idolothyta, and concluding with per d. n. j. C . . . . in sæcula sæculorum, amen. This is the end of the translation. We see that the translator lived at a day when idolatry had disappeared, and when the remainder of the Didache was out of date. He had no such reason for omitting ch. i, 3-6, so that this was presumably not in his copy.
Second Part

This (vii-x) begins with an instruction on baptism, which is to be conferred “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” in living water, if it can be had — if not, in cold or even hot water. The baptized and, if possible, the baptizer, and other persons must fast for one or two days previously. If the water is insufficient for immersion, it may be poured thrice on the head. This is said by Bigg to show a late date; but it seems a natural concession for hot and dry countries, when baptism was not as yet celebrated exclusively at Easter and Pentecost and in churches, where a columbethra and a supply of water would not be wanting. Fasts are not to be on Monday and Thursday “with the hypocrites” (i.e. the Jews), but on Wednesday and Friday (viii). Nor must Christians pray with the hypocrites, but they shall say the Our Father thrice a day. The text of the prayer is not quite that of St. Matthew, and it is given with the doxology “for Thine is the power and the glory for ever”, whereas all but a few manuscripts of St. Matthew have this interpolation with “the kingdom and the power” etc.

Ch. ix runs thus: “Concerning the Eucharist, thus shall you give thanks: ‘We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever’. And of the broken Bread: ‘We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever. For as this broken Bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.’ And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ; for of this the Lord said: ‘Give not the holy Thing to the dogs’.” These are clearly prayers after the Consecration and before Communion. Ch. x gives a thanksgiving after Communion, slightly longer, in which mention is made of the “spiritual food and drink and eternal Life through Thy Child”. After a doxology, as before, come the remarkable exclamations: “Let grace come, and this world pass away! Hosanna to the Son of David! If any is holy, let him come. If any be not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen”. We are not only reminded of the Hosanna and Sancta sanctis of the liturgies, but also of Apoc., xxii, 17, 20, and I Cor., xvi, 22. In these prayers we find deep reverence, and the effect of the Eucharist for eternal Life, though there is no distinct mention of the Real Presence. The words in thanksgiving for the chalice are echoed by Clement of Alexandria, “Quis div.”, 29: “It is He [Christ] Who has poured out the Wine, the Blood of the Vine of David, upon our wounded souls”; and by Origen, “In i Judic.”, Hom. vi: “Before we are inebriated with the Blood of the True Vine Which ascends from the root of David.” The mention of the chalice before the bread is in accordance with St. Luke, xxii, 17-19, in the “Western” text (which omits verse 20), and is apparently from a Jewish blessing of wine and bread, with which rite the prayers in ch. ix have a close affinity.
The Third Part

The Third Part speaks first of teachers or doctors (didaskaloi) in general. These are to be received if they teach the above doctrine; and if they add the justice and knowledge of the Lord they are to be received as the Lord. Every Apostle is to be received as the Lord, and he may stay one day or two, but if he stay three, he is a false prophet. On leaving he shall take nothing with him but bread. If he ask for money, he is a false prophet. Similarly with the order of prophets: to judge them when they speak in the spirit is the unpardonable sin; but they must be known by their morals. If they seek gain, they are to be rejected. All travellers who come in the name of the Lord are to be received, but only for two or three days; and they must exercise their trade, if they have one, or at least must not be idle. Anyone who will not work is a Christemporos — one who makes a gain out of the name of Christ. Teachers and prophets are worthy of their food. Firstfruits are to be given to the prophets, “for they are your High Priests; but if you have not a prophet, give the firstfruits to the poor”. The breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, “after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure”, and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. “Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers”. Notice that it is for the sacrifice that bishops and deacons are to be ordained. The last chapter (xvi) exhorts to watching and tells the signs of the end of the world.
SOURCES

It is held by very many critics that the “Two Ways” is older than the rest of the Didache, and is in origin a Jewish work, intended for the instruction of proselytes. The use of the Sibylline Oracles and other Jewish sources may be probable, and the agreement of ch. ii with the Talmud may be certain; but on the other hand Funk has shown that (apart from the admittedly Christian ch. i, 3-6, and the occasional citations of the New Testament) the 0. T. is often not quoted directly, but from the Gospels. Bartlet suggests an oral Jewish catechesis as the source. But the use of such material would surprise us in one whose name for the Jews is “the hypocrites”, and in the vehemently anti-Jewish Barnabas still more. The whole base of this theory is destroyed by the fact that the rest of the work, vii-xvi, though wholly Christian in its subject-matter, has an equally remarkable agreement with the Talmud in cc. ix and x. Beyond doubt we must look upon the writer as living at a very early period when Jewish influence was still important in the Church. He warns Christians not to fast with the Jews or pray with them; yet the two fasts and the three times of prayer are modelled on Jewish custom. Similarly the prophets stand in the place of the High Priest.
DATE

There are other signs of early date: the simplicity of the baptismal rite, which is apparently neither preceded by exorcisms nor by formal admission to the catechumenate; the simplicity of the Eucharist, in comparison with the elaborate quasi-Eucharistic prayer in Clem., I Cor., lix-lxi; the permission to prophets to extemporize their Eucharistic thanksgiving; the immediate expectation of the second advent. As we find the Christian Sunday already substituted for the Jewish Sabbath as the day of assembly in Acts, xx, 7 and I Cor., xvi, 2, and called the Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10), there is no difficulty in supposing that the parallel and consequent shifting of the fasts to Wednesday and Friday may have taken place at an equally early date, at least in some places. But the chief point is the ministry. It is twofold: (1) local and (2) itinerant. — (1) The local ministers are bishops and deacons, as in St. Paul (Phil., i, 1) and St. Clement. Presbyters are not mentioned, and the bishops are clearly presbyter-bishops, as in Acts, xx, and in the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul. But when St. Ignatius wrote in 107, or at the latest 117, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons were already considered necessary to the very name of a Church, in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. If it is probable that in St. Clement’s time there was as yet no “monarchical” bishop at Corinth, yet such a state of things cannot have lasted long in any important Church. On this ground therefore the Didache must be set either in the first century or else in some backwater of church life. The itinerant ministry is obviously yet more archaic. In the second century prophecy was a charisma only and not a ministry, except among the Montanists. — (2) The itinerant ministers are not mentioned by Clement or Ignatius. The three orders are apostles, prophets, and teachers, as in I Cor., xii, 28 sq.: “God hath set some in the Church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors [teachers]; after that miracles, then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?” The Didache places teachers below apostles and prophets, the two orders which St. Paul makes the foundation of the Church (Ephesians 2:20). The term apostle is applied by St. Paul not only to the Twelve, but also to himself, to Barnabas, to his kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias, who had been converted before him, and to a class of preachers of the first rank. But apostles must have “seen the Lord” and have received a special call. There is no instance in Holy Scripture or in early literature of the existence of an order called apostles later than the Apostolic age. We have no right to assume a second-century order of apostles, who had not seen Christ in the flesh, for the sake of bolstering up a preconceived notion of the date of the Didache. Since in that work the visit of an apostle or of a pretended apostle is contemplated as a not improbable event, we cannot place the book later than about 80. The limit, would seem to be from 65 to 80. Harnack gives 131-160, holding that Barnabas and the Didache independently employ a Christianized form of the Jewish “Two Ways”, while Did., xvi, is citing Barnabas — a somewhat roundabout hypothesis. He places Barnabas in 131, and the Didache later than this. Those who date Barnabas under Vespasian mostly make the Didache the borrower in cc. i-v and xvi. Many, with Funk, place Barnabas under Nerva. The commoner view is that which puts the Didache before 100. Bartlet agrees with Ehrhard that 80-90 is the most probable decade. Sabatier, Minasi, Jacquier, and others have preferred a date even before 70.

As to the place of composition, many suggest Egypt because they think the “Epistle of Barnabas” was written there. The corn upon the mountains does not suit Egypt, though it might be a prayer borrowed from Palestine. There are really no materials even for a conjecture on the subject.[url][/url]


42 posted on 08/22/2007 4:53:27 AM PDT by fatima (Baby alert,Baby Ava arrived 6-29-07 at 3 PM-she is 10 pounds:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
I have never been able to understand how anyone who read the Bible could doubt that Christ established a Church and put Peter in charge.

I have never been able to understand how anyone who reads the Bible could doubt that the Church that Peter took charge of was the Church in Jerusalem ---- not the Church in Rome.

43 posted on 08/22/2007 4:54:57 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer; ex-snook
Not one of them had a Bible! The New Testament had not yet been written!

But they had the OT. When Acts speaks of the Breans checking out scripture to see if what Paul was teaching them was truth, what scripture do you think they were studying. Christ is found on every page of the OT. He is the fulfillment of the OT.

Becky

44 posted on 08/22/2007 5:23:54 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

I believer there were a lot more bible circulating then people who use this argument want to acknowledge.

Look how many times there are references to people “studying scripture”. Look how many times in the NT Christians are told to study.

I believe there was at least one copy of the bible in every household, most people had access to at least some of scripture.

Becky


45 posted on 08/22/2007 5:30:24 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
They had a lot of oral tradition. Nothing was written down until the apostles starting dying off in the years, 80 or 90.

Something that no Catholic has ever made a response back to me is: The verses that are used by the Catholic church to defend "Oral teachings" are single verses from letters written to single churches. How do you know that when all the letters were gathered together to be the Bible, that everything they taught orally was not written down, so that when they were all put together we had the whole of their oral teaching???

Becky

46 posted on 08/22/2007 5:58:02 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He sure didn’t write much.


47 posted on 08/22/2007 6:06:22 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (concerning His promise.....not willing that any (of whom?) should perish but that all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Something that no Catholic has ever made a response back to me is: The verses that are used by the Catholic church to defend "Oral teachings" are single verses from letters written to single churches. How do you know that when all the letters were gathered together to be the Bible, that everything they taught orally was not written down, so that when they were all put together we had the whole of their oral teaching???

John 21:25: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

Note that this passage of John was written after almost all the NT had been completed.

48 posted on 08/22/2007 6:09:17 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Those are things that Jesus did, miracles. The book of John was written to prove that Christ was the Messiah that the Jews were looking for. The things He did are not teachings, per say, they are the things He did proving who He was. John, IMO, in this verse is saying I have written about some of the miracles, there were more, but John felt he had written about enough of them to prove his point.

This verse and the verses about oral teachings are two different topics.

Becky


49 posted on 08/22/2007 6:14:42 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I have never been able to understand how anyone who reads the Bible could doubt that the Church that Peter took charge of was the Church in Jerusalem ---- not the Church in Rome.

But these are not mutually exclusive propositions here. He took charge of the entire church, based in Jerusalem at first after the Resurrection, then at Antioch shortly afterward, then finally at Rome.

We know James later took charge of Jerusalem.

50 posted on 08/22/2007 6:14:53 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-176 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson