Mary the mother of my Lord (Heresy?)

[quickfire]

Your post on this thread was short compared to the other, but I will post the same answer...

This was at the end of your source:

originaly posted by quickfire...
In fact, the first man to be called a “Culdee” was Joseph of Aremethia. The Bible tells us that Joseph of Aremethia gave up his tomb for Jesus. Tradition tells us that he was actually the Uncle of the Virgin Mary, and therefore the Great-Uncle (or “half-Uncle” at least) of Jesus. It is also believed that Joseph of Aremethia traveled to the British Isles shortly after the resurrection of Christ, and built the first Christian Church above ground there. Tradition also tells us that Jesus may have spent much of his young adult life (between 13 and 30) traveling the world with his Great Uncle Joseph… though the Bible is silent on these years in the life

In the late 1300’s, the secret society of Culdees chose John Wycliffe to lead the world out of the Dark Ages.

posted by rock 22

As I began to do my research on your post I found something not quite right at all.

This history claims that a "secret society" that started by the real half uncle of Jesus Christ himself who quietly moved to the British Isles and built a church who 563 years later became a bible school and for 700 years they were teaching against the catholic church and in the 1300's the secret society chose John Wycliffe to go against a corrupt church.

That is when I just stop searching. I am sorry but this has false witness written all over it for me, and if it were true, does this sound like the work of Jesus.

Who would have created a secret society who's only purpose was to destroy the church? Not Jesus.

SORRY OK ROCK 22 i have to quote you again because i missed something you said...

ok let me explain to further to you first of all when Joseph of Aremethia , "marys unlce" and jesuses half uncle. traveled to scotland sometime shortly after jesuses resurection , it was not to start a religion against catholic teaching, this was not the way i put it, is this is the way you have seen it ?

he traveled to the united kingdom to spread the word of jesus and the new faith, he also helped build the first true christian church there, in the sense that he laid the foudations for the word and the true gospel.
this was very early ad century,, now as the faith began to grow 563 years later they called them self the Culdees after joseph of Aremethia. the first man to be called a “Culdee in the bible, and marys uncle.

now i must stress that when the faith grew they where only teaching about jesus, and this was the true gospel, this is what jesus wanted.
they was not saying catholic this catholic that ok.
so sorry this is not why i posted this is very sacred tradition, and like it is same where you get many of your catholic teachings from tradition,
ok so i continue now the romans being romans where always invading
and you have to remember that THEY where more about polictical power than spirutual , as you know the story about constantine, you see back then the romans would beat christians up for even calling them brother,

so rome had converted to the new christian faith ie the days of constantine, but they had still not fully understood the faith, because they had been worshiping pagon gods up untill that point,
so unfortunately from day 1 the romans and roman cathloics just did not get it,
THE ROMANS JUST WANTED TO HAVE POWER, and if you look back at there history
there power was dieing because more an more of there own people where converting to christian and better prospects, and so they made a last ditch effort to kill the christians , and that did not work either,
And then you know what happened???
well then the roman emperors got togeather and the romans emporers said to each other hey the only way we can win our people and have control
is to convert to the found faith
and so they carried on now with there new found faith.

and so now into the dark ages ans so on and so on roman catholics being the only authorised church, and teaching bad teaching after bad teaching.,,
This was when the Culdees of joseph Aremethia rose agianst them, because you see like your corupted roman catholic faith had been corupted by romans, and was growing and growing and growing.
THE true gospel, from other religions and the Culdees was growing to who had not been affected by romans, or so called roman popes, so this was when they drew the line and in the 1300s the secret society chose John Wycliffe to who was know as the morning star
THE Morning Star of the Reformation

 

[Maynard]

You seem to be upset about confession.
I merely stated that James said to confess your faults one to another.
Notice - "one to another" - please read - "one to another", not one to a priest.
Or one to a father. B.T.W. - it says in the same sentence to pray for one another - "and you will be healed".
When's the last time a priest prayed for you at confessional and healed you?
It hasn't happened.

Yes, it has happened, and does today whenever someone confesses their sins to a priest. The bishops and priests of the Catholic Church are in that true line of Apostolic succession dating back to Peter, and are following the true teachings of our Lord.
And Jesus gave the power to forgive sins only to the Apostles (not all disciples like you and I).

Read..
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 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.”

And I can tell you why it hasn't, because you are caught up in tradition.
You are caught like a fish in the net of catholicism. You are religious.

Caught up in tradition? Tradition is perfectly acceptable, and we (contrary to common protestant argument) are taught to abide by tradition...

2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

(**NOTE --For the first 4 centuries after Jesus, all teaching of scripture was by oral tradition, since the Bible in its present form was not approved of by the Catholic Church until the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), and Carthage (397AD)).

Catholicism is a highly successful religion. Been accepted by the world at large, and kings and priests.
How do you reconcile that with what Jesus told His disciples, that all mankind would hate them?

It IS what Jesus told His disciples, particularly His apostles. And do not confuse "disciple" with "apostle". There is a big difference, since while the apostles were also disciples, naturally, all disciples are not apostles. There were only 12 apostles, originally, and then those whom the apostles handed their leadership of the Church on to, which exists still today in the same church, the Catholic church.

Is it not because they had a true spiritual communion with the God of heaven(who satan tempted in the wilderness).
Read it and notice that satan is the king of this carnal realm. Quite the perplexity that your religion is so well received and taken care of by the powers that be.
Geometar's church was received quite differently by the communists. So, at least he has that going for him.
What? - The fact that evil rulers actually persecuted his church, instead of coddling it(at in the Roman Catholic case)

The Catholic Church is not persecuted? I suggest you study the history of Christianity and the Church.
We see it still today. Look even in the USA as the current Obama administration persecutes the Catholic Church with its HHS mandate, forcing under penalty of secular law that the Church violate all conscience and provide coverage for abortion procedures. The Catholic Church has taken the lead in opposing the government against this. At any rate, the Catholic Church is indeed persecuted. Look even at your own words, which certainly qualify as persecution against the Catholic Church. There is great persecution throughout the world against the Catholic Church. Far more I imagine than there is against the church which you are a member.
Really. Study history, and look at actual reality. Persecution indeed.

Rock022, I don't want argue with you. But you are serving a religion instead of God.

No. He is serving Christ within Christ's church, as a member of Christ's church, as we are all called to do. Serving Christ in harmony as ONE BODY, His church, of which Christ Himself is (and always has been) the head.


1Timothy 3:15: "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Ephesians 5: 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Matthew 16:18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. - LIST OF POPES, from Peter to today's Benedict XVI

Matthew 18:17-18: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, 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.

Ephesians 1: 20-23: which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Colossians 1: 18: He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

One, Holy, Apostolic Church.

Christ's true church is not some ambiguous collection of 20,000 different denominations that have sprung up since the reformation of the 1500's, all teaching different doctrines according to the different interpretations of thousands upon thousands of individual so-called pastors. Christ's church has existed since Christ gave Peter the authority to lead Christ's church, and exists still today in that same church which contains the succession of apostles down through the centuries.

Just know Rock, that your religion will not amount to anything.
Only your relationship. - - - - "Lord, Lord, didn't we do mighty works in your name!?"
But without relationship, Jesus pronounces judgement.
So if your soul tie is to your church instead of the Messiah, you will be in trouble.
(I'm not saying it IS, I'm saying if it is to your church instead of Jesus Christ, you will be in trouble)

You question Rock's relationship and fidelity to our Lord. Rock, as a Catholic Christian, as a member of Christ's one, holy, and apostolic church, is working out his own salvation with fear and trembling, as we are instructed to do (Phil 2:12).
Rock confesses his sins and is reconciled to God. Rock, in a state of grace, eats the flesh of Christ our Lord and drinks His blood, as we are instructed by our Lord and the Apostle Paul to do. Therefor Christ abides in him and he in Christ.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.


Praise and Glory to our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Geometar]

Well,there r much of the truth above,but there is something what i(East) cannot accept.
However i do agree with many written here,but i must say i haven't read it carefully.
Greetings

 

[quickfire]

originaly posted Maynard


One, Holy, Apostolic Church.

Christ's true church is not some ambiguous collection of 20,000 different denominations that have sprung up since the reformation of the 1500's, all teaching different doctrines according to the different interpretations of thousands upon thousands of individual so-called pastors. Christ's church has existed since Christ gave Peter the authority to lead Christ's church, and exists still today in that same church which contains the succession of apostles down through the centuries.
You question Rock's relationship and fidelity to our Lord. Rock, as a Catholic Christian, as a member of Christ's one, holy, and apostolic church, is working out his own salvation with fear and trembling, as we are instructed to do (Phil 2:12).
Rock confesses his sins and is reconciled to God. Rock, in a state of grace, eats the flesh of Christ our Lord and drinks His blood, as we are instructed by our Lord and the Apostle Paul to do. Therefor Christ abides in him and he in Christ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maynard So what your saying is that your church rc is the one true holy church ?? this is absolute nonsense very funny haha

 

[Geometar]

originaly posted Maynard


One, Holy, Apostolic Church.

Christ's true church is not some ambiguous collection of 20,000 different denominations that have sprung up since the reformation of the 1500's, all teaching different doctrines according to the different interpretations of thousands upon thousands of individual so-called pastors. Christ's church has existed since Christ gave Peter the authority to lead Christ's church, and exists still today in that same church which contains the succession of apostles down through the centuries.
You question Rock's relationship and fidelity to our Lord. Rock, as a Catholic Christian, as a member of Christ's one, holy, and apostolic church, is working out his own salvation with fear and trembling, as we are instructed to do (Phil 2:12).
Rock confesses his sins and is reconciled to God. Rock, in a state of grace, eats the flesh of Christ our Lord and drinks His blood, as we are instructed by our Lord and the Apostle Paul to do. Therefor Christ abides in him and he in Christ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maynard So what your saying is that your church rc is the one true holy church ?? this is absolute nonsense very funny haha

One Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church actually.
But can that be Roman Catholic?

 

[quickfire]

One Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church actually.
But can that be Roman Catholic?

well it seems that way
posted by maynard
You question Rock's relationship and fidelity to our Lord. Rock, as a Catholic Christian, as a member of Christ's one, holy, and apostolic church, is working out his own salvation with fear and trembling, as we are instructed to do (Phil 2:12).

you question our lord ???? well i do not know how you see that geo but to me there is only one lord

 

[kenisyes]

1. The bishops and priests of the Catholic Church are in that true line of Apostolic succession dating back to Peter, and are following the true teachings of our Lord.

2. There were only 12 apostles, originally, and then those whom the apostles handed their leadership of the Church on to, which exists still today in the same church, the Catholic church.

3. Rock confesses his sins and is reconciled to God. Rock, in a state of grace, eats the flesh of Christ our Lord and drinks His blood, as we are instructed by our Lord and the Apostle Paul to do. Therefor Christ abides in him and he in Christ.

1. I have posted elsewhere the history of apostolic succession. It hinges on the passing of headship from Peter to Linus, and is described in the Liber Pontificales. Linus was a Roman, probably could not speak Hebrew. At this time (64AD), the biggest part of the church was Jewish. Peter would not have appointed a Roman to be head to most of the church, who had never been to Jerusalem and did not speak the language.

2. You mean 13, counting Paul, and Matthias elected substitute for Judas by lot in the upper room? Please explain Acts 14:14 which states Barnabas is an apostle as well.

3. Where does it say that Jesus made the bread and wine be His body and blood? The Greek (and Latin Vulgate) both use the neuter pronoun for "this" in "this is my body...blood". In both languages, bread, body, flesh, wine, blood, are all masculine or feminine. That's like calling Jesus a she, or Mary a he, or the Holy Spirit an it.

 

[Geometar]

well it seems that way
posted by maynard
You question Rock's relationship and fidelity to our Lord. Rock, as a Catholic Christian, as a member of Christ's one, holy, and apostolic church, is working out his own salvation with fear and trembling, as we are instructed to do (Phil 2:12).

you question our lord ???? well i do not know how you see that geo but to me there is only one lord

I haven't understood this well,but sure there is only one Lord.
But however,question is what represent that rock to R Catholic.Not member Rock,but rock from Bible.On that we are building our,today 2 different Churches.

 

[Rock022]

1. I have posted elsewhere the history of apostolic succession. It hinges on the passing of headship from Peter to Linus, and is described in the Liber Pontificales. Linus was a Roman, probably could not speak Hebrew. At this time (64AD), the biggest part of the church was Jewish. Peter would not have appointed a Roman to be head to most of the church, who had never been to Jerusalem and did not speak the language.

2. You mean 13, counting Paul, and Matthias elected substitute for Judas by lot in the upper room? Please explain Acts 14:14 which states Barnabas is an apostle as well.

3. Where does it say that Jesus made the bread and wine be His body and blood? The Greek (and Latin Vulgate) both use the neuter pronoun for "this" in "this is my body...blood". In both languages, bread, body, flesh, wine, blood, are all masculine or feminine. That's like calling Jesus a she, or Mary a he, or the Holy Spirit an it.

1 - I assume you have hard evidence on this.

2 - Has history been wrong all the time in this? or are we getting to semantics?

3 - You seriously have never read this on the bible? And every translation in the world in other languages like spanish which I speak and read are wrong?

 

[kenisyes]

1 - I assume you have hard evidence on this.

2 - Has history been wrong all the time in this? or are we getting to semantics?

3 - You seriously have never read this on the bible? And every translation in the world in other languages like spanish which I speak and read are wrong?

1. You yourself will say Peter appointed Linus, right? Consult the Liber Pontificales. There are several Latin and English translations on the internet. I posted two about a week ago. It states Linus is a native of Italy. Consult any standard history you like, for the relative sizes of the Jerusalem and Gentile churches in 64AD. Josephus and Eusebius are both accepted by the Magisterium. The Liber Pontificales is the book composed by the Catholic Church to prove apostolic succession.

2. I asked you to account for the verse. I drew no conclusion about history. If you want to get into history, explain why the Didache states there are limitless apostles. Or, simply account for why the Didache is listed in every edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia from its rediscovery in the 1870's, I believe, as authentic apostolic writings, and then all of a sudden listed as not authentic in the 1919 edition and thereafter. Or explain why there could be confusion over who is a real apostle vs. a false apostle throughout the NT, if there are only 13 names on the list.

3. English does not show the difference. The Greek originals and the Vulgate are as I have said. Since Spanish has no neuter gender, it cannot show the difference. Remember too, that the NT predates both the English and Spanish languages by several hundred years. There was more than enough time for a wrong interpretation to influence the later translations. I cannot speak for all the world's languages.

 

[Rock022]

1. You yourself will say Peter appointed Linus, right? Consult the Liber Pontificales. There are several Latin and English translations on the internet. I posted two about a week ago. It states Linus is a native of Italy. Consult any standard history you like, for the relative sizes of the Jerusalem and Gentile churches in 64AD. Josephus and Eusebius are both accepted by the Magisterium. The Liber Pontificales is the book composed by the Catholic Church to prove apostolic succession.

2. I asked you to account for the verse. I drew no conclusion about history. If you want to get into history, explain why the Didache states there are limitless apostles. Or, simply account for why the Didache is listed in every edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia from its rediscovery in the 1870's, I believe, as authentic apostolic writings, and then all of a sudden listed as not authentic in the 1919 edition and thereafter. Or explain why there could be confusion over who is a real apostle vs. a false apostle throughout the NT, if there are only 13 names on the list.

3. English does not show the difference. The Greek originals and the Vulgate are as I have said. Since Spanish has no neuter gender, it cannot show the difference. Remember too, that the NT predates both the English and Spanish languages by several hundred years. There was more than enough time for a wrong interpretation to influence the later translations. I cannot speak for all the world's languages.

I first most apologize, I have had a few hard physical days and I am exhausted. I have let my sarcasm show this is not my intention. I need to rest and give to prayer. God bless!

 

[Maynard]

I have posted elsewhere the history of apostolic succession. It hinges on the passing of headship from Peter to Linus, and is described in the Liber Pontificales. Linus was a Roman, probably could not speak Hebrew. At this time (64AD), the biggest part of the church was Jewish. Peter would not have appointed a Roman to be head to most of the church, who had never been to Jerusalem and did not speak the language.

And you are quite mistaken.

The Liber Pontificales, which you are using to refute the fact that Linus was the 2nd bishop of Rome (Pope), actually does say that Linus succeeded Peter. It states; "Linus occupied the see 11 years, 3 months and 12 days. He was bishop in the time of Nero from the consulship of Saturninus and Scipio until the year when Capito and Rufus were consuls. He was crowned with martyrdom. He, by direction of the blessed Peter,,,,. He held two ordinations, 15 bishops, 18 priests. He also was buried near the body of the blessed Peter in the Vatican "
Source - Liber Pontificales
The book of the popes (Liber pontificalis) I- -

Therefor your own source contradicts your own argument and confirms mine.

And add to that, while the Liber Pontificales does indeed say that Linus succeeded Peter as leader of the Church (Bishop of Rome), there are also many much earlier sources which also verify that Linus was Peter's successor.
The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."
Furthermore Linus is presented by Jerome as "the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church",
by Eusebius, as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter".
John Chrysostom says; "This Linus,,, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter",
The Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office.
etc,,, etc,,

Where does it say that Jesus made the bread and wine be His body and blood? The Greek (and Latin Vulgate) both use the neuter pronoun for "this" in "this is my body...blood". In both languages, bread, body, flesh, wine, blood, are all masculine or feminine. That's like calling Jesus a she, or Mary a he, or the Holy Spirit an it.

So then you believe that Christ did not say;
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
John 6:53-56

And then you believe that Christ did not institute this very thing soon after at the Last Supper??
This never happened??
Now, as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Also;And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Matthew 26:22-29, and Luke 22:19

So you believe this never happened? Or, as you say, the translation gets twisted and leaves Jesus calling himself a woman and the Holy Spirit an "it"? Huh? What sort of argument are you making? You are simply grasping at straws.
I tell you, the disciples in John 6 who left Jesus understood it pretty well, as did the apostles who practiced the Lords Supper (and still do today, naturally), as instructed by our Lord.
Sometimes we forget that there have been centuries of disciples that understood their own language very well. Not to mention years of early church fathers writing about the Real Presence, and centuries of teaching about the Real Presence. But kenisyes and his google translator say "no" to this and the teaching of our Lord. Nonsense.

Also, Christ and the first apostles/disciples (Jews) spoke Aramaic, not Greek or Latin. So do not get yourself caught up in the invalid semantics and more strawman arguments concerning the poetic liberties of various Greek and Latin translations. Our Lord is quite clear concerning His instruction for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and His institution of the practice at the Last Supper before He went to the cross.

God bless.

 

[Maynard]

Where does it say that Jesus made the bread and wine be His body and blood? The Greek (and Latin Vulgate) both use the neuter pronoun for "this" in "this is my body...blood". In both languages, bread, body, flesh, wine, blood, are all masculine or feminine. That's like calling Jesus a she, or Mary a he, or the Holy Spirit an it.

Furthermore, kenisyes, I let my priest friend look at this tonight (who is a seasoned bible scholar and seminary instructor). This is his response to your erroneous assertions;
_______
Here's the Greek of Mt 26:26:

λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.

The word for 'body' here is σῶμα, and it's neuter. The form of 'this' that's used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)... neuter.

Let's look at verse 28:

τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

'This' (τοῦτο -- neuter) is my 'blood' (αἷμα -- neuter).

So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement... the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there's grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative ("this") matches the noun in the respective sentence ('body', 'blood'). No matter what he's attempting to say, the data just doesn't support his contention!

(OK: I can't resist -- I'll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where 'this' takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of 'this' is neuter... well, that's just silly! If he objects to this argument, point him to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics -- the section on demonstrative pronouns begins on page 325.)
______

There you have it, kenisyes.

God bless.

Maynard

 

[kenisyes]

And you are quite mistaken.

The Liber Pontificales, which you are using to refute the fact that Linus was the 2nd bishop of Rome (Pope), actually does say that Linus succeeded Peter. It states; "Linus occupied the see 11 years, 3 months and 12 days. He was bishop in the time of Nero from the consulship of Saturninus and Scipio until the year when Capito and Rufus were consuls. He was crowned with martyrdom. He, by direction of the blessed Peter,,,,. He held two ordinations, 15 bishops, 18 priests. He also was buried near the body of the blessed Peter in the Vatican "
Source - Liber Pontificales
The book of the popes (Liber pontificalis) I- -

Therefor your own source contradicts your own argument and confirms mine.

And add to that, while the Liber Pontificales does indeed say that Linus succeeded Peter as leader of the Church (Bishop of Rome), there are also many much earlier sources which also verify that Linus was Peter's successor.
The earliest witness is Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."
Furthermore Linus is presented by Jerome as "the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church",
by Eusebius, as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter".
John Chrysostom says; "This Linus,,, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter",
The Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office.
etc,,, etc,,

I believe Peter appointed Linus as bishop of Rome. I also believe Paul concurred. Your quotes from from Iraneaus and Jerome, and Chrystosom agree. It is a separate step to conclude that the chruch of Rome is the leader of the entire church. That is a political step, and is not justified by this singular appointment. That step is made in the Lib. Pont. by a political argument later. My point is, that if Peter did not appoint Linus as head of all the churches, apostolic successtion is broken here, and later political agreement is simply agreement among people, not a choice of Peter.

 

[kenisyes]

Furthermore, kenisyes, I let my priest friend look at this tonight (who is a seasoned bible scholar and seminary instructor). This is his response to your erroneous assertions;
_______
Here's the Greek of Mt 26:26:

λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.

The word for 'body' here is σῶμα, and it's neuter. The form of 'this' that's used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)... neuter.

Let's look at verse 28:

τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

'This' (τοῦτο -- neuter) is my 'blood' (αἷμα -- neuter).

So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement... the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there's grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative ("this") matches the noun in the respective sentence ('body', 'blood'). No matter what he's attempting to say, the data just doesn't support his contention!

(OK: I can't resist -- I'll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where 'this' takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of 'this' is neuter... well, that's just silly! If he objects to this argument, point him to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics -- the section on demonstrative pronouns begins on page 325.)
______

There you have it, kenisyes.

God bless.

Maynard

He is correct. Thank you. I thought I had checked this enough years ago, and was speaking from memory. He shouldn't have gone beyond what He thought I was saying. He is correct about the koine Greek use of demonstratives, which I knew. Because of that, "this" can mean anything. As he says, we need to rely on tradition to determine the meaning. After all, "this" should by right, apply first to "bread" rather than to "body" and it is masculine (I looked again, this time). Paul's quote is "this is the cup of my blood". Another tradition exists in the Didache, which I would rather accept, as it is almost certainly the older (dating to wandering apostle times). The catholic tradition, as far as I know, starts with Pliny the Younger's report that Christians were accused of "eating babies", ca 90AD, and may not apply to all Christians. This is not the place for a full-blown discussion.

Neither of your posts answered my questions about the apostles.

 

[Geometar]

I believe Peter appointed Linus as bishop of Rome. I also believe Paul concurred. Your quotes from from Iraneaus and Jerome, and Chrystosom agree. It is a separate step to conclude that the chruch of Rome is the leader of the entire church. That is a political step, and is not justified by this singular appointment. That step is made in the Lib. Pont. by a political argument later. My point is, that if Peter did not appoint Linus as head of all the churches, apostolic successtion is broken here, and later political agreement is simply agreement among people, not a choice of Peter.

Ok,this is for couple times mentioned here,but i will post it again.

Pope of Rome isnt the 1st and last.There r others Popes,on example leader of Coptic Christians is Pope also,but not the 1 from Rome.And Jesus didnt built the Church on Peter and dint gave only to Peter gifts,but to all Apostles the same.They all had command that what do forgive on earth it will be forgive on Heavens.Peter was in Antioch,so Antioch Patriarchs holds themselfs for successors of him and have seal with face of Peter and Paul.If you even want to count Peter in the Roman bishops, which is doubtful,u will not prove by anything,that he handed over to his successors not only episcopal authority, but all of his gifts.The Lord called apostle John son of the Virgin, but his successors in the Church of Ephesus did not had the title.Apostle James has been called a pillar of the Church, and he, not Peter, was chaired by the Apostolic Synod of Jerusalem, because there he was a bishop. Do you know of the oldest times what is the title of Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch? You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra), not on Peter, i.e. on the rock of faith will build His church. Holy Apostles as required (Rule 34) and the Ecumenical Councils ordered that the bishops of each nation is considered among one of the chief, but the universal Church was not told about any head - except the Lord Jesus Christ. And i can write a lot to u.But what u must know,is that all Churches r same and equal and all Patriarchs and Popes and Bishops are equal.The apostles did not hide his residence, Peter was certainly murdered in Rome, and in that few people would know where he is, all that he wrote it in Rome, because there was no printing press and apostolic letters were gradually transferred from hand to hand.
He does not write it in Rome but in Alexandria, where he lived with Mark in a suburb called Babylon, as we learn from the lives of the hermits. Later there Marco was caught and handed over to the Gentiles to martyrdom, and Peter ended his life in Rome, which we Orthodox do not deny, as do Lutherans saying that Peter was never in Rome. How ever,Peter never called himself successor of Christ or higher then other Apostles,but brother with them and equal to them.At 1Peter 5:1-4 u will read that he equals himself with others elders and chef Shepherd is Jesus Christ.So,all those references from u r not correct and out of truth.

This is view of East Churches.

 

[kenisyes]

Ok,this is for couple times mentioned here,but i will post it again.

Pope of Rome isnt the 1st and last.There r others Popes,on example leader of Coptic Christians is Pope also,but not the 1 from Rome.And Jesus didnt built the Church on Peter and dint gave only to Peter gifts,but to all Apostles the same.They all had command that what do forgive on earth it will be forgive on Heavens.Peter was in Antioch,so Antioch Patriarchs holds themselfs for successors of him and have seal with face of Peter and Paul.If you even want to count Peter in the Roman bishops, which is doubtful,u will not prove by anything,that he handed over to his successors not only episcopal authority, but all of his gifts.The Lord called apostle John son of the Virgin, but his successors in the Church of Ephesus did not had the title.Apostle James has been called a pillar of the Church, and he, not Peter, was chaired by the Apostolic Synod of Jerusalem, because there he was a bishop. Do you know of the oldest times what is the title of Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch? You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra), not on Peter, i.e. on the rock of faith will build His church. Holy Apostles as required (Rule 34) and the Ecumenical Councils ordered that the bishops of each nation is considered among one of the chief, but the universal Church was not told about any head - except the Lord Jesus Christ. And i can write a lot to u.But what u must know,is that all Churches r same and equal and all Patriarchs and Popes and Bishops are equal.The apostles did not hide his residence, Peter was certainly murdered in Rome, and in that few people would know where he is, all that he wrote it in Rome, because there was no printing press and apostolic letters were gradually transferred from hand to hand.
He does not write it in Rome but in Alexandria, where he lived with Mark in a suburb called Babylon, as we learn from the lives of the hermits. Later there Marco was caught and handed over to the Gentiles to martyrdom, and Peter ended his life in Rome, which we Orthodox do not deny, as do Lutherans saying that Peter was never in Rome. How ever,Peter never called himself successor of Christ or higher then other Apostles,but brother with them and equal to them.At 1Peter 5:1-4 u will read that he equals himself with others elders and chef Shepherd is Jesus Christ.So,all those references from u r not correct and out of truth.

This is view of East Churches.

I agree with you.

This is what I am driving at in this discussion with Maynard. That Peter only gave Linus the right to be the Bishop of Rome. Not the leader of the Church as a whole. My point is that the Pope is only an elected representative of certain bishops, and is not the ruler of any except those bishops who wish to follow him. The Roman Cath. will disagree with you, and claim that the others of the 12 recognized Peter as the head. My statement is that it doesn't make any difference if they recognized him as the head or not, since Peter never passed on the headship anyway, and the Rom. Cath. documents themselves prove it. If you can prove something from their documents, they are more likely to believe you than if you prove it from your documents. That's my idea.

Do you know of any churches founded by someone other than a member of the twelve that are still standing?

You never answered my question about why the elders in the Temple accepted that Mary wanted to be married to an old man who did not want children.

 

[quickfire]

Ok,this is for couple times mentioned here,but i will post it again.

Pope of Rome isnt the 1st and last.There r others Popes,on example leader of Coptic Christians is Pope also,but not the 1 from Rome.And Jesus didnt built the Church on Peter and dint gave only to Peter gifts,but to all Apostles the same.They all had command that what do forgive on earth it will be forgive on Heavens.Peter was in Antioch,so Antioch Patriarchs holds themselfs for successors of him and have seal with face of Peter and Paul.If you even want to count Peter in the Roman bishops, which is doubtful,u will not prove by anything,that he handed over to his successors not only episcopal authority, but all of his gifts.The Lord called apostle John son of the Virgin, but his successors in the Church of Ephesus did not had the title.Apostle James has been called a pillar of the Church, and he, not Peter, was chaired by the Apostolic Synod of Jerusalem, because there he was a bishop. Do you know of the oldest times what is the title of Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch? You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra), not on Peter, i.e. on the rock of faith will build His church. Holy Apostles as required (Rule 34) and the Ecumenical Councils ordered that the bishops of each nation is considered among one of the chief, but the universal Church was not told about any head - except the Lord Jesus Christ. And i can write a lot to u.But what u must know,is that all Churches r same and equal and all Patriarchs and Popes and Bishops are equal.The apostles did not hide his residence, Peter was certainly murdered in Rome, and in that few people would know where he is, all that he wrote it in Rome, because there was no printing press and apostolic letters were gradually transferred from hand to hand.
He does not write it in Rome but in Alexandria, where he lived with Mark in a suburb called Babylon, as we learn from the lives of the hermits. Later there Marco was caught and handed over to the Gentiles to martyrdom, and Peter ended his life in Rome, which we Orthodox do not deny, as do Lutherans saying that Peter was never in Rome. How ever,Peter never called himself successor of Christ or higher then other Apostles,but brother with them and equal to them.At 1Peter 5:1-4 u will read that he equals himself with others elders and chef Shepherd is Jesus Christ.So,all those references from u r not correct and out of truth.

This is view of East Churches.

i think that you you only have to look back through the history of popes that have gone bad, to see that the chair of st peter has not been handed down properly..or got lost. so there is noway you can call the current pope the true successor of st peter.

please also note that it was god who handed the keys to heaven to st peter, do you understand this geo,

 

[Geometar]

What we MUST know is to interprete the words of Evangelist Matthew 16:15-18
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades j will not overcome it.
So,u must take those verses that you could understand the wisdom on the right way and to have benefits of her.
Jesus Christ here pointed on the FAITH of Piter as strong,powerful ROCK,on which Church shall be builded.Do not think that all those Saints and Martyrs gave their lifes because on Peter was established Church,but because they had strong FAITH in Jesus Christ the Savior.Peter true confession of FAITH was reason for responding from Jesus,and HE indeed pointed his FAITH as unbrakable ROCK and foundation of the Church.
1 Corithians 3:11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

This is the teaching of the Holy Fathers,bouth Latin and East.

 

[Geometar]

Kenisyes
You never answered my question about why the elders in the Temple accepted that Mary wanted to be married to an old man who did not want children.

I think that i have posted u an answer why Elders called all vidows and how was choused a husband for Mary.