OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 10:09:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Apostolic Throne  (Read 1107 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« on: April 11, 2006, 06:07:10 AM »

Bad Catholic Claims#1 The Apostolic Throne. I hope to have an on-going series of rebuttals against Catholic apologetics sites, particularly those pushin Papal primacy.

Claim: Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).[1]

Counter: As it was a See founded by an Apostle it is Apostolic. It is not ‘the’ Apostolic throne, but one of many.
Rome is referred to as ‘an’ Apostolic throne.
“because it was an Apostolical throne;”
Athanasius History of the Arians 35[2]

Further Tertullian notes many churches were Apostolic; founded by Aposltes.
"No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the fight of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation."[3]

 Also See THE APOSTOLIC THRONE OF ANDREW AND JOHN[4]

Endnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
[2] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-51.htm#P4861_1933128
[3] “Against Heresies” Book 1, Chapter XXI quoted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian121.html
[4] http://www.patriarchate.org/ecumenical_patriarchate/chapter_1/throne_of_Andrew_and_john.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Byzantine Catholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2006, 10:18:04 PM »

Hello!  

I have more than just a passing interest in watching this thread develope as an Eastern Catholic and a convert to the apostolic Faith.  5 years ago I made the decision to join the Eastern Catholic Church rather than the OCA parish across the street from us.

Now that the "convert fever" has worn down considerably and my feet are joining the others on the pilgrimage,  I have had time to perhaps reflect a bit and wonder about some of the differences which continue to separate East from West, especially that of the hierarchy of the Church and what it is supposed to be.   I believe that possibly my Protestant roots (as weak as they were) and my being colored by 25 years of Fundamentalist and Calvinist thinking tended to lead me more naturally to union with Rome than to question it.

I am open to examining a different way of looking at the Church, especially since Catholicism seems to have run off the rails since Vatican II.

I hope this will be a lively thread with much to learn and ponder.

Blessings,

Ed
Logged

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,  have mercy on me a sinner!
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2006, 07:32:16 AM »

Hello!  
G'day. No one else seemed to be interested in these, so my plan to release a series of apologetics faltered. However to save on time I'll be really brief

One Catholic site states that the Bible provides scriptural proofs of the importance of Peter (there's a widespread argument based on the fact he's mentioned more times in the NT than anyone else but Jesus; which would mean (by their logic) he's more important than Mary)
Anway, this site http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ is typical

Just a sample rebuttal…

Website: 1 Cor. 9:5 — Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.



The Bible actually says...

1 Corinthians 9:3 This is my defence to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

 

I would think that two people are singled out here, James, and Peter.

 

Website: Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

 

And when Paul and Barnbas speak, everyone else is silent. James sits in judgment, and he's the one who makes the ruling.

 

The Bible :Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

 

Romans 15: 19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see,  and those who have not heard will understand.” 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

 

This means Paul's been preaching in places where the church is already etablished; such as in Jerusalem. But he intends to go where it has not been established; his ambition - to go to Rome. If Paul had have believed that Peter had already established a church in Rome, it would be odd then to say that he’s going to a place where no one has established a church
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2006, 07:35:35 AM »

I hope this will be a lively thread with much to learn and ponder.

Blessings,

Ed
I hope that this is not too much at once to ponder as I get carried away with citations and referencing (at university my classmates might use up to 15 sources in an essay, whereas I might use in excess of 60).

Anyway, here's another one; using or rather mis-using John Chrysostomon's words of praise for Peter.

Claim: (Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)[1]

Reply: My thanks here for an extensive web-resouce[2] that shows that these are exalted titles but in using them Chrysostom does not mean that Peter possesses a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church or that he is the rock upon which the Church is built. Again, we have already seen this in Augustine. He uses similar language in describing Peter but without its having a Roman Catholic meaning. We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter. The term coryphaeus, for example, was a general title applied by Chrysostom to several of the apostles, not to Peter exclusively. It carries the idea of leadership but implies no jurisdiction. Chrysostom uses this term to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul. He states that just as Peter received the charge of the world, so did the apostles Paul and John. Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:

 
John Chrysostomon uses such titles many times…
”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...’We are able to drink the chalice.9]

This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter:”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.1] http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/easternfathers.html
[2] http://www.christiantruth.com/stephenray.html
[3] John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X; p.345 also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-62.htm#P5483_1689815
[4] John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, p.169 also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-33.htm#P1079_1025049
[5] (Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928 ), p76).
[6] -John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, pp. 331-332). Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-92.htm#P5178_1692488
[7] John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1 Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-05.htm#P175_1913
[8] John Chrysostom Homily 24, On Genesis. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p.165.
[9] John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2” quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, pp331-332. Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-92.htm#P5178_1692488
[10] John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”
Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, pp331-332. Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-92.htm#P5178_1692488
[11] John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1. Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-05.htm#P175_1913
[12] John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, pp561-562. Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-96.htm#P3437_3131017
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 32 queries.