tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post3722212188348655406..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: On the ChurchWilliam Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-59162084318613780212008-01-24T21:08:00.000-06:002008-01-24T21:08:00.000-06:00Basing exegesis of texts we have on texts we infer...Basing exegesis of texts we have on texts we infer must have been appears to be common to left and right alike!<BR/><BR/>When I was RC when there was an RC church, we were taught that Matthew is placed first in both the NT and the lectionary (now dumped) because it is the oldest text, not in its present form but its Aramaic, now lost, original, followed by similar arguments to those rehearsed by Christine.<BR/><BR/>In my RC Scripture classes at university we were taught that the texts we have of all three "Synoptic" gospels are redactions of the real originals that comprised a now lost source or Quelle, Q.<BR/><BR/>So more irony, that the quite contradictory positions I was taught at different times all under the name Catholic rely upon similar methodology, as Jim put it, exegesis of texts we have on the basis of inferred texts we don't.<BR/><BR/>Lost Aramaic originals, lost Sources, what the heck.<BR/><BR/>I believe it is the "consensus" of the Church that the NT consists in the texts we have. <BR/><BR/>PS and Amen about the "polity passages" Pastor!Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-81609770073487119012008-01-24T16:00:00.000-06:002008-01-24T16:00:00.000-06:00There was a recent program -- I think it was on 60...There was a recent program -- I think it was on 60 Minutes -- featuring an Aramaic speaking Chaldean Catholic Church at worship. The program wanted to highlight the fact that many people are unaware that there ARE Christians in Iraq and how very far back their roots go.<BR/><BR/>It was most interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-37398261536089845682008-01-24T15:57:00.000-06:002008-01-24T15:57:00.000-06:00Ah, but the Patriarch further states:The Church of...Ah, but the Patriarch further states:<BR/><BR/><I>The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking. This was not the case in the East, which had a Jewish majority (especially in Babylon and Adiabene) for a much longer period. Even when the Church of the East became mostly Gentile, the Aramaic was preserved and used rather than translated into the various vernacular languages of the regions to the East of the Euphrates river.</I><BR/><BR/>Further,<BR/><BR/><I>Even to the West of the Euphrates river, in the Holy Land, the main vernacular was Aramaic. The weekly synagogue lections, called sidra or parashah, with the haphtarah, were accompanied by an oral Aramaic translation, according to fixed traditions. A number of Targumim in Aramaic were thus eventually committed to writing, some of which are of unofficial character, and of considerable antiquity. The Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud was written in Aramaic, and received its definitive form in the 5th century. The Babylonian Talmud with its commentaries on only 36 of the Mishnah's 63 tractates, is four times as long as the Jerusalem Talmud. These Gemaroth with much other material were gathered together toward the end of the 5th century, and are in Aramaic. Since 1947, approximately 500 documents were discovered in eleven caves of Wadi Qumran near the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. In addition to the scrolls and fragments in Hebrew, there are portions and fragments of scrolls in Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic, which are sister languages, have always remained the most distinctive features marking Jewish and Eastern Christian religious and cultural life, even to our present time.</I><BR/><BR/>Do I accept the Greek New Testament? Of course!!<BR/><BR/>But I find the history of early Middle Eastern Christianity fascinating. It has some very ancient roots.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-82158319233017635192008-01-24T15:30:00.001-06:002008-01-24T15:30:00.001-06:00Nice try, but the Peshitta (which I can read) is a...Nice try, but the Peshitta (which I can read) is a translation of the Greek.<BR/><BR/>The Greek is the inspired word of the Lord that has been preserved for us. Best to stick just with that.Rev. Charles Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09089242798450053313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-12878256762095797342008-01-24T15:30:00.000-06:002008-01-24T15:30:00.000-06:00Christine,Lutheran pastors and well-read laity are...Christine,<BR/><BR/>Lutheran pastors and well-read laity are familiar with the Peshitta - for we study the history of the transmission of the Scriptures in seminary. But the notion that the Peshitta is the original NT is untenable. You might wish to consider this article:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeshittaWilliam Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-87100545504080669252008-01-24T15:25:00.000-06:002008-01-24T15:25:00.000-06:00Jim, if you will go to the www.peshitta.com site y...Jim, if you will go to the www.peshitta.com site you can see the parallel English/Aramaic text. I can't copy it here because it is in PDF format. The references to "Peter" and "Rock" both use the Aramaic "Keepa".<BR/><BR/>Also please note:<BR/><BR/><I>The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means "Straight", in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.<BR/><BR/>In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:<BR/><BR/>"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."</I><BR/><BR/>I understand why this is not relevant to Lutherans (I had never even heard of the Peshitta when I was Lutheran).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-66175085440281336172008-01-24T13:54:00.000-06:002008-01-24T13:54:00.000-06:00Christine,This has nothing to do with the discussi...Christine,<BR/><BR/>This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Show me an Aramaic text of the Matthew 16 passage, and we can talk. I have no interest in speculation. Especially speculation that impinges on the text of scripture.Jim Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666507238123326223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-61999048415133217512008-01-24T13:49:00.000-06:002008-01-24T13:49:00.000-06:00Hi Jim,St. Paul apparently went rather comfortably...Hi Jim,<BR/><BR/><I>St. Paul apparently went rather comfortably from Greek to Hebrew (cf. Acts 21.40) and very likely to Aramaic as well, and I suspect he was pretty typical of educated people in that era.</I><BR/><BR/>St. Paul, the Roman citizen, was no doubt well educated.<BR/><BR/>Not so sure about a bunch of working class fishermen (no offense intended here at all).<BR/><BR/>You are certainly correct about the polyglot nature of first century Palestine. My point about the Chaldean Church is that for them Aramaic is still a "living language" but they worship as Catholics adhering to both Scripture and the great Tradition of the Church.<BR/><BR/>And that, of course, is the dividing line among Protestants and Catholics (and certainly albeit of a different nuance) between Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-62632222563970848102008-01-24T13:18:00.000-06:002008-01-24T13:18:00.000-06:00hi, Christine,I'm not denying that Jesus likely sp...hi, Christine,<BR/><BR/>I'm not denying that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic around the house. But I think this is far less of a sure thing than we might think: 1st century Palestine was a polyglot area -- obvious from John 19.20: "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin" -- and I suspect that there were lots of folks who used 2 or 3 languages throughout the course of a day. St. Paul apparently went rather comfortably from Greek to Hebrew (cf. Acts 21.40) and very likely to Aramaic as well, and I suspect he was pretty typical of educated people in that era.<BR/><BR/>What I would continue to suggest, though, is that what the Chaldean church uses liturgically is really immaterial to the discussion. We just don't know what Jesus might have theoretically been saying in Aramaic. I think it's not inconceivable that he was actually speaking in Greek. But that's not the point. The text we're discussing is only found in Greek. Tradition tells us it was written in Hebrew, but we don't have that. I think we should carefully examine the text we have, and avoid speculation about what we don't.Jim Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666507238123326223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-60866242229431759322008-01-24T12:26:00.000-06:002008-01-24T12:26:00.000-06:00Pastor Weedon, on Pope St. Gregory the Great, with...Pastor Weedon, on Pope St. Gregory the Great, with all due respect, if I remember correctly Gregory rejected the title of “universal” bishop in the context that that this title implied “sole” bishop but I would have to check that out further. There are also Gregory’s repeated declarations that Petrine primacy made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome.<BR/><BR/>Despite his many accomplishments and abilities, he was a humble man. He took as his official title "Servant of the Servants of God," the official title of the pope to this day. He is a Doctor of the Church and is considered the last of the Western Church FathersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-33360425519144966352008-01-24T12:02:00.000-06:002008-01-24T12:02:00.000-06:00Jim, the liturgical language of the Chaldean Catho...Jim, the liturgical language of the Chaldean Catholic Church is still Aramaic. It is not exactly the same as how Jesus would have spoken, but it is very close. As far as the everyday Aramaic language among the Chaldean people, it is even more developed and known as "modern Aramaic". So in the Chaldean liturgy you have both an Aramaic language in the texts that is very close to the Aramaic of Jesus as well as a modern version of it that is given in the homily to the people.<BR/><BR/>The written Old and New Testaments are the results of oral tradition, albeit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For example, from the cross Jesus cries out in the words of Psalm 22:2, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46), an Old Testament psalm of lament. In Mark the verse is cited entirely in Aramaic ("Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani) which Matthew partially retains but changes the invocation of God to the Hebrew Eli, possibly because that is more easily related to the statement of the following verse about Jesus' calling for Elijah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-81406938187756884602008-01-24T11:34:00.000-06:002008-01-24T11:34:00.000-06:00Christopher,There is much truth in what you write....Christopher,<BR/><BR/>There is much truth in what you write. We do need to be careful, though, of simply dismissing what the Fathers say about X when we don't particularly agree with it. As to the Petrine primacy of honor, who could disagree? But even a Pope like St. Gregory the Great flat out refused to be called the "universal bishop." He said it denigrated the office of every bishop to speak so, and he was right. From what we have of the fathers, it is clear that why Rome was so valued was because it didn't engage in theological speculations, but was renowned for simply forking over the faith as it was given. It was not an apriori that Peter would speak through Leo; but Rome did indeed, time and again in the ancient world, hold to the simple faith of the fishermen. <BR/><BR/>As to the exegetical matter - it is positively silly to imagine Ur-texts and interpret the given text on the basis of our imaginings and speculations.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-34612403662842365412008-01-24T11:24:00.000-06:002008-01-24T11:24:00.000-06:00Perhaps even more ironic is basing exegesis of the...Perhaps even more ironic is basing exegesis of the Greek text (which we have) on a purported Aramaic text (which we don't).Jim Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666507238123326223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-71609383412518387022008-01-24T11:22:00.000-06:002008-01-24T11:22:00.000-06:00I am so sick of the Aramaic argument that I am alm...I am so sick of the Aramaic argument that I am almost not even willing to address it.<BR/><BR/>It is speculative. The words of the Lord that we have are Greek. We must stick with the words we have. Yes, Papias said that Matthew was written in the language of the Hebrews, but there are at least two possible meanings to that and both are possible.<BR/><BR/>One is that the Gospel was written in Aramaic. The other is that it was written in Hebraic Greek.<BR/><BR/>The latter is more likely because Greek was the lingua franca of 1st century Jews.<BR/><BR/>Appealing to the possible Aramaic words that Jesus may have used is simply a way to ignore the Lord's words as we have them.Rev. Charles Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09089242798450053313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-75209237350827991572008-01-24T11:16:00.000-06:002008-01-24T11:16:00.000-06:00Pastor Lehmann, I'm not sure the "Petros" versus "...Pastor Lehmann, I'm not sure the "Petros" versus "petra" issue is so simple.<BR/><BR/>Catholic exegesis sees:<BR/><BR/><I>You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: <B>the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter")</B>. It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." <BR/><BR/>Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.</I><BR/><BR/>I find it somewhat ironic to muse that "some of the Fathers" agreed with Luther.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the reverse is more likely, that Luther agreed with some of the Fathers, who preceded him by quite a few centuries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-23013477500878865992008-01-24T11:07:00.000-06:002008-01-24T11:07:00.000-06:00... or the Spirit led consensus of the Church, Chr...... or the Spirit led consensus of the Church, Christ's Body. While historically various groups have disagreed on a number of things, ecclesiology - both in and outside of the Roman Empire - have agreed on the rights and responsibilities of the bishop and presbyters. The fact that a stray comment by a Father can be found here and there doesn't undercut the consensus in practice, but simply shows that differing opinions are allowed as we/they work out our salvation in fear and trembling.<BR/><BR/>It is also true that only a full reading of a saints thought, together with evidence of his life, can truly portray what a saint 'taught' and 'believed'. None of us here have done that and much of their works are not extant and we know too little of their lives, so claiming "the Fathers said" or that "the Fathers disagreed" or "agreed" on any point is a matter of faith and opinion. We know only what we know based on tradition and surviving 'proof' and we interpret this incomplete dataset based on our a priori expectation of what is 'true'. It isn't a slam on anyone as much as a truism of fallen humanity whether Orthodox, Lutheran, RC, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-46884895535593749412008-01-24T10:43:00.000-06:002008-01-24T10:43:00.000-06:00Not to put to fine a point on it, but "who cares w...Not to put to fine a point on it, but "who cares what the fathers say?" No, I'm not dismissing the fathers. My point, however, is that in this brief discussion it's already been clearly established that some of the greatest of the fathers disagree with each other and themselves on this topic.<BR/><BR/>Luther makes a great point in "These Words This Is My Body Still Stand Against The Fanatics" in his arguments against Oecolampadius. He notes that many of the fathers agree with him on the sacrament but in the end it doesn't matter even a little bit.<BR/><BR/>What matters is what the Lord says. And the Lord says that it is upon the "petra" (feminine) that He will build his church. Grammatically this cannot possibly refer to Peter. The thing it most likely refers to is the rema, or spoken word of Peter.<BR/><BR/>If we're to discuss Matthew 16, let's discuss Matthew 16.<BR/><BR/>The witness of the fathers is inconsistent. I guess we're stuck with Scripture.Rev. Charles Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09089242798450053313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-33123286862797761922008-01-24T10:38:00.000-06:002008-01-24T10:38:00.000-06:00Well, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome, Leo the...Well, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome, Leo the Great and numerous others agree with the Catholic position.<BR/><BR/>From the fifty-fourth homily on St. Matthew:<BR/><BR/><I>"[When Christ has asked: 'Whom say ye that I am?] What, then, does the mouth of the apostles, Peter, everywhere fervent, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the apostles? All are asked, and he replies. When Christ asked what were the opinions of the people, all answered; but when He asked for their own, Peter leaps forward, and is the first to speak: 'Thou art the Christ.' And what does Christ answer? 'Blessed art thou,' etc....Why, then, said Christ: 'Thou art Simon, son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas' [John 1:42] ? Because thou hast proclaimed My Father, I name thy father, as though I said: 'As thou art son of Jona, so am I son of My Father....And I say to thee: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, that is upon the faith of this confession.'<BR/><BR/>"Hence He shows that many will believe, and raises his thoughts higher, and makes him Shepherd. 'And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' If they prevail not against it, much less against Me: so be not terrified when thou shalt hear 'I shall be betrayed and crucified.' And then he speaks of another honor: 'And I will give thee the keys of the king of heaven.' What is this: 'And I will give thee' ? 'As the Father hath given thee to know Me, so will I give thee'....Give what? The keys of heaven, in order that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth may be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth may be loosed in heaven.' Now, then, is it not His to give to sit upon His right hand and on his left, since He says: 'I will give thee' ? Do you see how He Himself leads Peter to a high consideration of Himself, and reveals Himself and shows Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises? For what is proper to God alone, that is, to forgive sins, and to make the Church in so great an onset of waves, and to cause a fisherman to be stronger than any rock, when the whole world wars against him, this He Himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremias, that He would set him as a column of brass and as a wall; but Jeremias to a single nation, Peter to the whole world.<BR/><BR/>"I would willing ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son: Which are the greater gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to him to spread that of the Father and of Himself throughout the world, and to a mortal man He entrusted the power over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to him who extended the Church throughout the world, and showed it stronger than the world." (Hom 54[55] in Matt VII, 531[546] seq</I><BR/><BR/>Chrysostom on John 21:15ff<BR/><BR/><I>"After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])</I><BR/><BR/>It would appear that the Golden Mouth finds a natural link between Peter's "Confession" and "Headship".<BR/><BR/>But I'll post no more on this because we could all go round and round. I adhere to the authority of the Catholic Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-76281205626265412272008-01-24T09:22:00.000-06:002008-01-24T09:22:00.000-06:00Note, though, how St. Hilary and St. John Chrysost...Note, though, how St. Hilary and St. John Chrysostom speak of the Matthew 16 passage.<BR/><BR/>And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built. But the perceptive faculties of flesh and blood cannot attain to the recognition and confession of this truth. It is a mystery, Divinely revealed, that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. Was it only the Divine name; was it not rather the Divine nature that was revealed to Peter? If it were the name, he had heard it often from the Lord, proclaiming Himself the Son of God. What honour, then, did he deserve for announcing the name? No; it was not the name; it was the nature, for the name had been repeatedly proclaimed. This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. (St. Hilary, *De Trinitatis* VI:36,37<BR/><BR/>And <BR/><BR/>"And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 54)<BR/><BR/>Bede goes in the same direction, as do numerous others. Not on Peter's person, but upon Peter's CONFESSION is the Church of Christ built!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-15426050263577460542008-01-24T09:11:00.000-06:002008-01-24T09:11:00.000-06:00Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As ...<I>Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." <BR/><BR/>And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."</I><BR/><BR/>Sent indeed.<BR/><BR/>But . . .<BR/><BR/><I>He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" <BR/><BR/>Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." <BR/><BR/>And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."</I><BR/><BR/>From the Patristic record:<BR/><BR/>Cyprian of Carthage<BR/><BR/><I>"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . " (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).</I><BR/><BR/>And on these passages, of course, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox continue to disagree.<BR/><BR/>It is also noteworthy that according to Catholic scholarship in the disputes concerning the masculine "petros" versus the feminine "petra" Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-35230628050036505582008-01-24T07:48:00.000-06:002008-01-24T07:48:00.000-06:00Terry, The same passage where it speaks of "sent" ...Terry, <BR/><BR/>The same passage where it speaks of "sent" meaning put in one's position by the vote of a voters assembly. ;)William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-6839578775281487852008-01-24T01:10:00.000-06:002008-01-24T01:10:00.000-06:00Where does Scripture speak of "sent" meaning put i...Where does Scripture speak of "sent" meaning put in one's position by one put in his position by Peter?Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-84161054725104114312008-01-23T10:39:00.000-06:002008-01-23T10:39:00.000-06:00If we are using the term "call" in the sense of vo...If we are using the term "call" in the sense of vocatio, then in what way can we argue that Roman priests have no call? They have a vocation, and are sent by their bishop. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if we are using "call" in the LCMS sense of a congregation's "call for one to be a pastor," where do we find such a calling in scripture? Scripture speaks about those who are "sent," but there's no -- at least none I can find -- "call" in the way the LCMS speaks about it.Jim Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16666507238123326223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-57449555898468523232008-01-23T01:36:00.000-06:002008-01-23T01:36:00.000-06:00When I was a kid in the 1950s, I had a Mass play s...When I was a kid in the 1950s, I had a Mass play set and used to dress up in it and "say Mass". (I suppose the real idea was to get a boy thinking about becoming a priest when he grows up.)<BR/><BR/>But aside from being a kid, what made what I did not a Mass in reality, or in other words, if I did the same thing now, what is it that makes this not a Mass? It is because, in RC belief, I am not ordained by a bishop in succession from the Apostles and thus do not have the indellible character imparted by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. My Mass is not a Mass, and in two senses: it is not sacramentally a Mass since I have no Orders, and even if I did while it would be sacramentally valid it would be illicit as I have no, shall we say, orders -- I do not operate under the jurisdiction of a bishop or ordinary.<BR/><BR/>In this light, our Divine Service is simply an adult version of the same thing, neither sacramentally valid nor canonically licit.<BR/><BR/>By contrast -- and I am quite willing to be corrected by pastor commentators if I mis-state -- what is different by Lutheran lights from me dressing up and saying "Mass" and one of our pastors doing so is not the lack of a sacramental mark, indeed they and I alike are quite competent on those grounds to do it, but I have no call to do so and therefore have no business doing so, I would be operating apart from that fixed point, as Pastor Brown called it, of order by which one is safe.<BR/><BR/>That is how I understand the agreement as to authorisation but disagreement as to what it is. The power comes from the power of the Lord's words, not from the bishop, but one is not free to call this office unto himself apart from the proper call of the church.<BR/><BR/>Hmm, now I'm wondering, if Lutheran pastors are not "valid" because they have no Orders, are Catholic priests not "valid" because they have no call?<BR/><BR/>As a side note, clarity on what constitutes a Divine Call and the Office of Holy Ministry is one of three reasons why I am LCMS these days rather than WELS.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-21930969908575269492008-01-22T15:39:00.000-06:002008-01-22T15:39:00.000-06:00And, if we assume the Didache (which I think a num...And, if we assume the Didache (which I think a number of scholars hold does arise in Antioch) and Ignatius (assuming the authenticity of the letters) were acquainted. The "bishop" of whom he speaks does not come TO the congregation from elsewhere, but apparently arises from within it and is appointed BY the congregation. (Chapter 15)William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.com