St. Peter, the leader of the Apostles and the whole Church before, during and after Pentecost.PART 3:
-
From within the Acts of the Apostles, but also in Paul’s Epistles, we have isolated a selection of instances which verify the assertion that the Apostle Peter was NOT endowed with any super-apostolic authority whatsoever:
1. The Apostles had sent BOTH PETER AND JOHN to Samaria, AS THEIR ENVOYS (Acts 8: 14).
2. The Christians who originated from the circumcised censured Peter for having baptized gentiles, and he was then obliged to explain himself to them! (Acts 11: 1-18)
3. The problems that arose from the entry of gentiles into the Church were NOT, finally, resolved by any decrees issued by Peter; they were resolved through decisions of the Apostolic Synod, which Peter did not preside over, but James, the brother of Christ and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who also had the last say on the matter. As for the epistle of the Synod addressed to the Christians of the gentiles, it was sent – NOT by Peter (exclusively) – but BY THE APOSTLES AND THE PRESBYTERS AND THE BRETHREN (Acts 15: 1-29).
4. The Apostle Paul insists that he had received his apostolic rank DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST and NOT “from any man” (Gal. 1: 11-12). But then, if the Apostle Peter was, in fact, the “representative of Christ on earth”, shouldn’t Paul have received his apostolic status from him? Paul did of course visit Peter after his conversion to Christ, but it was NOT so that his apostolic status would be validated; instead, as the blessed Chrysostom aptly commented: “…not intending to ask anything of Peter, nor even to hear him; but, BEING AN EQUAL TO HIM […], and not as one learning something from him, nor as one receiving any correction, but for this reason only: that he might see him and honor him, by presenting himself…” (John Chrysostom, On Galatians 1, PG 61: 631). In other words, it was only a complimentary, brotherly visit.
5. When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10)
-
6. In Antioch, the Apostle Paul publicly reprimanded the Apostle Peter for his refusal to dine together with gentile Christians, and openly characterized his behaviour as hypocritical and not in accordance “with the truth of the Gospel”. (Gal. 2: 11-14)
7. In his 1st Epistle to Corinthians the Apostle Paul reproaches the Christians there for splitting up into sides (Paul’s, Peter’s and Apollo’s) and he counsels them as follows: “Let no-one boast among men, for all of them are yours, whether it is Paul, or Apollo, or Peter. ” (1 Cor. 3: 1-23). Would Paul have dared to place himself AND Apollo in the same position as Peter, if the latter were indeed the terrestrial representative of Christ?
8. After the persecution by Herod Agrippa, the predominant personage in the Church was Paul, not Peter. The Epistles by the Apostles – which had been written during that period – were, in their majority, writings by Paul. Even the last 16 chapters (of the overall 28 chapters) of Acts are almost exclusively dedicated to Paul’s activities, whereas they say nothing about Peter. That would have been inconceivable, if Peter did actually have a hyper-Apostolic jurisdiction.
Let us pray to the Lord, with zeal and humility, to lead the Roman Catholics back to the 21-century-old, ONE, HOLY, ORTHODOX, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Patience and prayer… Let us have complete trust in Christ and His words. The Orthodox Church will NEVER lose the Truth; She will NEVER submit to people, NEVER be subjugated to any “infallible” Pope, because the Lord promised so. And the Lord keeps His promises, with integrity (Matt. 16: 18). Do not fear, my brethren. We now have the other Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) among us, Who leads the Church to the whole Truth. It is for this reason that incessant prayer, inner cleansing, regular Sacramental living and a daily reinforcement of the Orthodox Overseas Mission work as well as our struggle against heresy should be treated as our duties. The rest is in the hands of our Triadic God. He is the One Who will bring a positive outcome to all Orthodox endeavours, to all Orthodox Churches and Mission labours. Amen.
.jpg "Fr. Abe, CRS"){kind=small}
-
[From within the Acts of the Apostles, but also in Paul’s Epistles, we have isolated a selection of instances which verify the assertion that the Apostle Peter was NOT endowed with any super-apostolic authority whatsoever:]
LET ME CHECK YOUR CLAIM.
[1. The Apostles had sent BOTH PETER AND JOHN to Samaria, AS THEIR ENVOYS (Acts 8: 14).]
HA, HA, HA... IT IS NOWHERE STATED THERE WHAT YOU CLAIM. THE FACT THAT PETER AND JOHN HAD BEEN SENT IS NOT A REFUTATION OF PETER'S AUTHORITY. BECAUSE BEING THE HEAD DOES NOT MEAN HE CANNOT BE SENT. THE LEADER IS ACTUALLY THE ONE VISITING PLACES AND GOING ON IMPORTANT TASKS. THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT PETER IS SUBORDINATED TO THE OTHER APOSTLES.
PETER WENT ON THAT MISSION BECAUSE HE TOO WANTED TO GO THERE. OTHERWISE, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DECIDE AGAINST HIS WILL. MUCH MORE IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE HEAD SHOULD BE THE ONE TO GO BECAUSE SAMARIA IS THE ENEMIES OF THE JEWS. IT WAS A DELICATE AND SENSITIVE MISSION. IN FACT, THE HOLY SPIRIT PREFERRED PETER TO GO THERE BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION IS NARRATED IN THE LIFE OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND IT WAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PETER THAT IT WAS SHOWN:
Acts 8:14-17
14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized intoc the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
THAT IS A GREAT PRIVILEGE ON THE PART OF PETER. IT HAS ALL THE MORE CEMENTED HIS IMPORTANCE IN THE LIFE OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
[2. The Christians who originated from the circumcised censured Peter for having baptized gentiles, and he was then obliged to explain himself to them! (Acts 11: 1-18)]
HA, HA, HA... OF COURSE, THEY WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE WHAT PETER DID WAS SOMETHING NEW AND WILL HAVE GREAT IMPACT IN CHRISTIAN LIFE. EVEN PRESIDENTS WERE SUMMONED BY THE CONGRESS OR PRIMIE MINISTERS BY PARLIAMENT TO EXPLAIN THEIR EXTRAORDINARY DECISIONS. BUT, AS YOU CAN SEE WHEN PETER EXPLAINED NO OPPOSITION WAS GIVEN AT ALL. INSTEAD THEY PRAISED GOD. UNLIKE THE MODERN DAY PRESIDENTS NOW WHO ARE STILL BEING OPPOSED BY THE OPPOSITION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN EXPLANATIONS.
[3. The problems that arose from the entry of gentiles into the Church were NOT, finally, resolved by any decrees issued by Peter; they were resolved through decisions of the Apostolic Synod, which Peter did not preside over, but James, the brother of Christ and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who also had the last say on the matter. As for the epistle of the Synod addressed to the Christians of the gentiles, it was sent – NOT by Peter (exclusively) – but BY THE APOSTLES AND THE PRESBYTERS AND THE BRETHREN (Acts 15: 1-29).]
SINCE YOU ONLY HAVE 7 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU ARE NOT TRULY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON HOW COUNCILS ARE PROPERLY DONE.
FIRST, POPES NORMALLY DO NOT PRESIDE IN COUNCILS. EVEN IN VATICAN I AND VATICAN II WHEN THEY WERE HELD RIGHT IN THE VATICAN THE POPES DIDN'T PRESIDE. THERE IS USUALLY THE BISHOP OF THE PLACE OR A HIGHLY RESPECTED BISHOP WHO PRESIDES.
SINCE THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL WAS HELD IN THAT CITY IT WAS BUT PROPER FOR ST. JAMES TO PRESIDE.
CONCERNING THE SOLUTION TO THE DISPUTE, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THERE WERE INTENSE AND PROLONG DEBATES. BUT EVERY BODY WENT SILENT WHEN PETER SPOKE. IT WAS PETER WHO SETTLED THE DISPUTE. JAMES SIMPLY FOLLOWED PETER. JAMES WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO OVERTURN THE DECISION OF PETER. IT WAS THE CONFESSION OF PETER, THE STAND OF PETER THAT IS UPHELD.
ALL THOSE PRESENT, APOSTLES, JUDAIZERS, BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS BOWED TO THE DECISION OF PETER. JAMES TOO BOWED TO THE DECISION OF PETER.
-
[4. The Apostle Paul insists that he had received his apostolic rank DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST and NOT “from any man” (Gal. 1: 11-12).]
OF COURSE, ONLY JESUS CAN MAKE ONE AN APOSTLE. WE ARE NOT TEACHING THAT 'ANY MAN' CAN MAKE AN APOSTLE. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT MEANS YOU ARE DECEIVING YOURSELF.
[ But then, if the Apostle Peter was, in fact, the “representative of Christ on earth”, shouldn’t Paul have received his apostolic status from him?]
PETER CAN DO THAT IF CHRIST WILLED HIM TO DO SO BUT THE LORD DECIDED TO APPEAR TO PAUL IN PERSON RATHER THAN DO IT THROUGH THE AUTHORITY OF PETER. BUT PETER DID SO WITH THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS. WITHOUT DIRECT COMMAND FROM THE LORD JESUS PETER DECIDED TO HOLD AN ELECTION FOR THE SUCCESSOR OF JUDAS. THUS, PETER IS TRULY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST.
[ Paul did of course visit Peter after his conversion to Christ,]
OF COURSE. HE CHOSE TO VISIT PETER MORE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER APOSTLES. IT IS FAVORABLE TO OUR POSITION.
[ but it was NOT so that his apostolic status would be validated;]
THERE IS NO NEED FOR PETER TO VALIDATE THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL. BESIDES PAUL WENT TO SEE PETER TO RECOGNIZE PETER'S AUTHORITY AND NOT TO OPPOSE HIM AS YOUR PATRIARCHS ARE DOING.
[ instead, as the blessed Chrysostom aptly commented: “…not intending to ask anything of Peter, nor even to hear him; but, BEING AN EQUAL TO HIM […], and not as one learning something from him, nor as one receiving any correction, but for this reason only: that he might see him and honor him, by presenting himself…” (John Chrysostom, On Galatians 1, PG 61: 631). In other words, it was only a complimentary, brotherly visit.]
O NO, NO, NO... IT WAS NOT A COMPLIMENTARY VISIT. IT WAS AN ACT OF RECOGNITION OF THE VERY FACT THAT PETER IS THE FIRST IN DIGNITY AND HONOR AMONG THE APOSTLES AND THAT HE WAS THE LEADER. IF ANDREW WAS THE LEADER THEN PAUL WOULD TALK TO ANDREW INSTEAD. HE, HE, HE... IF PAUL IS ONLY VISITING PETER HOW COME HE DIDN'T VISIT THE OTHER APOSTLES. IT MEANS PETER HAS SOMETHING THAT OTHERS DO NOT HAVE. WHAT IS THAT? LEADERSHIP AND HIGHER AUTHORITY.
THE WORDS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OTHER FATHERS:
“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).
SEE, PETER IS THE STRONGEST AND GREATEST OF ALL THE APOSTLES... AND MUCH MORE, HE IS THE SPEAKER OF THEM ALL.
“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).
SEE, ST. PETER IS THE CHIEF OF THE DISCIPLES. IT MEANS HE IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY OF ALL BELIEVERS.
“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).
LOOK, ANOTHER EASTERN FATHER DECLARED ST. PETER AS THE FOREMOST OF THE APOSTLES.
THESE TESTIMONIES SLAPS YOU ON THE FACE. THEY MAKE YOU A LIAR. IT IS YOU WHO IS DISTORTING THE FATHERS AND HIDING PROPER CITATIONS ON WHAT IS THE REAL THOUGHT OF THE FATHERS.
WHERE IS THE STATEMENT THAT ANDREW OR CONSTANTINOPLE IS EQUAL WITH PETER OR ROME? WHERE? NOTHING, NADA, NYET NYET!!! Here is another:
“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).
PETER DESERVED TO BE PLACED BEFORE 'ALL' APOSTLES. THAT INCLUDES JAMES, PAUL AND ANDREW IF YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND IT.
-
[5. When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10)]
HA, HA, HA... THIS IS THE MOST STUPID ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD FROM YOU. THAT ARGUMENT IS VERY CHEAP. IMAGINE, JAMES IS RARELY MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT AND THEN YOU WILL CLAIM THAT JAMES IS FIRST OVER PETER. EXCUSE ME. JAMES IS HERE MENTIONED BY PAUL BECAUSE WHEN PAUL VISITED JERUSALEM IT IS BUT PROPER TO HONOR THE BISHOP OF THAT PLACE. BUT IT IS NOWHERE SUPPORTED BY THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONIES THAT JAMES IS FIRST THAN PETER. O NO, NO, NO...
LET ME PROVE IT WITH AN AVALANCHE OF CITATIONS FOR YOU TO ENJOY SO THAT YOUR BLINDNESS WILL BE OPENED TO THE TRUTH. HERE IS A BEAUTIFUL RESPONSE FROM THE CATHOLIC APOLOGIST OF THE 'TREASURE CHEST' SITE:
The names of Peter, which include Simon and Cephas, are mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle."Of Peter the most is known. Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the other Apostles combined are only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references." Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, "Life of Christ", page 106.
The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?
Every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Gal 2:9, his name appears first. In Mt 10:2 it even says that Peter is first, "Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,...". See also Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13.
Peter's name appears first also when 3 or 4 of the Apostles are listed: Mt 17:1, Mk 5:37, Mk 9:2, Mk 13:3, Mk 14:33, Lk 5:8-10, Lk 8:51, Lk 9:28.
As for Gal 2:9, it was customary then, as it is to this very day, to name the Bishop of the Diocese first. If the Pope visited a Diocese, the Bishop would be named ahead of him as it is the proper protocol. In Gal 2, Peter was visiting Jerusalem, as verses 1-8 show.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who deny the Primacy of Peter, will invariably point to this one and only verse where Peter is named second and will completely ignore the many verses which list his name first. If James held the primacy as some would like us to believe, then why is he mentioned first in only one single verse?
YOUR JAMES IS LESSER THAN PETER. NO MATCH AT ALL.
BESIDES, IF IT IS TRUE THAT JAMES IS HIGHER THAN PETER THEN JERUSALEM SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN ROME AND YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE WILL BE POOR THIRD. HA, HA, HA... YOUR MOSCOW IS NOT EVEN PART OF THE PENTARCHY. HA, HA, HA... IT WAS A LATER INVENTION.
-
[6. In Antioch, the Apostle Paul publicly reprimanded the Apostle Peter for his refusal to dine together with gentile Christians, and openly characterized his behaviour as hypocritical and not in accordance “with the truth of the Gospel”. (Gal. 2: 11-14)]
HA, HA, HA... THAT IS A VERY SHALLOW ARGUMENT ALSO.
IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE NOT AWARE THAT BEING THE HEAD OR THE LEADER DOES NOT MEAN BEING FREE FROM CRITICISM. O NO, NO, NO... THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CAN BE CRITICIZED BY A MERE SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN IN THE COUNTRY. THE CITY MAYOR CAN BE QUESTIONED AND CRITICIZED BY HIS SUBORDINATES CITY COUNCILORS. IT IS THEREFORE ILLOGICAL AND UNFOUNDED IN REALITY YOUR CLAIM THAT BECAUSE PETER WAS QUESTIONED OR REPRIMANDED BY PAUL HE WAS NO LONGER THE LEADER. O NO, NO, NO... AS I'VE SAID THAT IS VERY POOR ARGUMENT. THAT IS A NON SEQUITUR.
IF YOU WILL USE THAT ARGUMENT IT WILL BOOMERANG ON YOU. BECAUSE THERE ARE MONKS OF MT. ATHOS WHO REFUSED TO OBEY THE COMMAND OF THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND YOUR PATRIARCH EVEN USE MILITARY FORCE TO UPHOLD ORDER. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOUR PATRIARCH IS DEVOID OF AUTHORITY?
HOW ABOUT PAUL? PAUL WAS QUESTIONED AND OPPOSED BY THE JUDAIZERS. THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM ON CIRCUMCISION ISSUE UNTIL PETER SETTLED IT. IF PAUL IS EQUAL TO PETER THEN WHY WAS IT NEEDED TO SETTLE THE DEBATES IN JERUSALEM? HOW COME THE WORDS OF PAUL WERE NOT ENOUGH TO QUENCH THE OPPOSITION?
Act 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas HAD NO SMALL DISSENSION AND DISPUTATION WITH THEM, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOUR POSITION IS. ST. PAUL AND BARNABAS WERE OPPOSED. THERE WAS EVEN GREAT DISSENSION AND DISPUTATION AGAINST THEM. THEN THEY WERE TOLD TO GO TO JERUSALEM TO SETTLE THINGS WITH THE APOSTLES. THEN, YOU WILL DARE THAT PAUL IS EQUAL OR HIGHER THAN PETER BECAUSE PAUL REBUKED PETER. HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND.
ACTUALLY EVEN THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL WAS QUESTIONED [cf. 2 Corinthians 10-11]. BUT THAT OF PETER WAS NEVER QUESTIONED. NEVER EVER.
-
THAT INCIDENT REPORTED IN GAL 2:11-14 TOOK PLACE IN ANTIOCH. PETER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, HE DIDN'T COMMIT ANY DOCTRINAL ERROR AND NEITHER DID HE TEACH ANY TEACHING CONTRARY TO MORALS. PETER WAS SIMPLY BEING DIPLOMATIC. IN FACT, ST. BARNABAS JOINED ST. PETER.
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA STATED THAT ST. PETER DIDN'T FIGHT BACK WITH ST. PAUL. HE TOOK THE REBUKE WITH HUMILITY OF SPIRIT WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF A TRUE CHRISTIAN LEADER. ONE SCHOLAR NOTED THAT AFTER THIS INCIDENT ST. PAUL BECAME A PERSONA NON GRATA IN ANTIOCH AND NEVER AGAIN RETURNED IN THE PLACE:
Paul also mentions that even Barnabas (his traveling companion and fellow apostle until that time) sided with Peter.[33]The final outcome of the incident remains uncertain. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that Peter saw the justice of the rebuke." In contrast, L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity claims: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return." [34 White, L. Michael (2004). From Jesus to Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 170. ISBN 0060526556.] WIKIPEDIA
THIS SIMPLE MISTAKE OF JUDGMENT FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASING A GROUP IS NOT ONLY PRESENT IN ST. PETER. IT WAS ALSO COMMITTED BY ST. PAUL. IN ACTS 15 HE DEBATED SO HARD HOLDING THAT CIRCUMCISION IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO BE CHRISTIAN, YET ONE CHAPTER AFTER HE SUCCUMBED TO THE DEMAND OF THE JEWS TO HAVE ST. TIMOTHY BE CIRCUMCISED. SO, HE TOO WAS ACTING DIPLOMATICALLY. HE SWALLOWED HIS DOCTRINAL POSITION JUST TO PACIFY OTHER PEOPLE:
Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and CIRCUMCISED HIM BECAUSE OF THE JEWS which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.SEE, ST. PAUL SWALLOWED HIS DOCTRINAL STAND JUST TO APPEASE THE JEWS. HE SHOWED DOUBLE STANDARD HERE. HE SHOULD HAVE STOOD HIS GROUND AGAINST THOSE JEWS. YET, HE DECIDED TO BE MORE DIPLOMATIC TO AVOID FURTHER CONFLICTS.
BOTH STS. PETER AND PAUL MEANT WELL ON BOTH OCCASION. YES, THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART BUT THAT MISTAKE IS DUE TO HUMAN WEAKNESS AND NOT DUE TO SINFULNESS. THEY ARE NO LESS GREAT JUST BECAUSE THEY SHOWED HUMAN LIMITATIONS.
THE AUTHORITY OF PETER IS NOT IN ANY WAY DIMINISHED BY THIS INCIDENT.
-
[7. In his 1st Epistle to Corinthians the Apostle Paul reproaches the Christians there for splitting up into sides (Paul’s, Peter’s and Apollo’s) and he counsels them as follows: “Let no-one boast among men, for all of them are yours, whether it is Paul, or Apollo, or Peter. ” (1 Cor. 3: 1-23). Would Paul have dared to place himself AND Apollo in the same position as Peter, if the latter were indeed the terrestrial representative of Christ?]
ST. PAUL IS NOT PUTTING HIMSELF AND APOLLOS ON THE SAME POSITION OR LEVEL OF AUTHORITY WITH PETER. WHY? IT IS OBVIOUS. APOLLOS IS NOT EQUAL WITH PAUL, HOW MUCH MORE WITH PETER. IS APOLLOS EQUAL WITH ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE? OR WITH ST. JUDE THADDEUS? HA, HA, HA... OF COURSE NOT. IN FACT, THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL REVERENCE GIVEN TO APOLLOS WHILE ST. PETER, ST. PAUL, ST. ANDREW, ETC. ARE SO WELL-LOVED.
THAT APOLLOS IS NOT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL 12. HE WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE GOSPEL. THERE IS NO TESTIMONY THAT THE LORD MADE HIM AN APOSTLE AS HE DID TO ST. PAUL.
IF YOU WILL REASON THAT PAUL IS ON EQUAL STATUS WITH PETER THEN APOLLOS IS EQUAL WITH PAUL. THEN APOLLOS IS HIGHER THAN STS. JAMES, ANDREW, JOHN, THOMAS, PHILIP, BARTHOLOMEW, JUDE, ETC. THAT IS ABSURD. ILLOGICAL, UNHISTORICAL, UNBIBLICAL... THAT IS THEOLOGICAL MADNESS.
THAT IS STUPID. APOLLOS IS NOT EQUAL WITH PAUL AND PAUL IS NOT EQUAL WITH PETER.
ST. PAUL WAS SIMPLY ASKING THE CORINTHIANS TO STOP FACTIONALISM AND DIVISIONS BUT ST. PAUL IS NOT NEGATING THE HIERARCHY OF THE CHURCH. HE SIMPLY PREACHES UNITY WITHOUT REJECTING THE HIERARCHY. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT BY STATING SO HE PRESERVES THE HIERARCHY BECAUSE HE MENTIONED A LEAST KNOWN CHRISTIAN LEADER NAMED APOLLOS, THEN A HIGHER RANKING ONE - A NEW APOSTLE IN HIS PERSON AND THE MOST RESPECTED OF THE ORIGINAL TWELVE. FROM THE LOWEST TO THE HIGHEST OF THE HIERARCHY. HE WAS EXPLAINING THAT ON THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES EACH MEMBER OF THE CHURCH IS CONTRIBUTING FOR THE WELFARE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST FROM THE LOWEST TO THE HIGHEST AND THEREFORE DIVISIONS MUST BE AVOIDED.
IF WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR REASONING IT WILL DESTROY WHAT ECUMENICAL COUNCIL HAS DISTINGUISHED - 'THE PENTARCHY'. IF EVERY LEADER IS EQUAL IN THE CHURCH THEN THE DEACONS ARE EQUAL WITH THE PRESBYTERS, THE PRESBYTERS EQUAL WITH BISHOPS, THE BISHOPS EQUAL WITH ST. PAUL, ST. BARNABAS, STS. TIMOTHY AND TITUS, ETC. AND THESE YOUNG APOSTLES ARE EQUAL WITH THE HEAD ELDERS STS. JAMES, ANDREW, THOMAS, JOHN, ETC. AND ON TO PETER. THAT IS HERETICAL.
IN THE CHURCH ALL ARE ONE BUT THERE IS A DISTINCTION OF HIERARCHY IN THE HOLY ORDERS. IF ALL BISHOPS ARE SIMPLY EQUAL THEN WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE PROTESTANTS.
THAT IS WHY YOUR ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE ONLY A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THE DISORGANIZED PROTESTANTS.
-
[8. After the persecution by Herod Agrippa, the predominant personage in the Church was Paul, not Peter.]
THAT IS NOT TRUE. OBVIOUSLY ST. PAUL WAS BEING QUESTIONED AND DISOBEYED BY SOME SECTORS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. IF NOT FOR PETER AND JAMES AND THE OTHER APOSTLES PAUL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BELIEVED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS.
IT SO HAPPENED THAT PAUL WAS MORE EDUCATED THAN PETER AND WAS ABLE TO TRAVEL MORE BECAUSE OF HIS INFLUENCE AND HIGH EDUCATION UNLIKE THE ILLITERATE FISHERMAN FROM GALILEE. OF COURSE, A FORMER PHARISEE IS MORE INFLUENTIAL AND A BETTER SPEAKER AND WRITER THAN A FISHERMAN. BUT IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT PAUL WAS MET BY SOLID OPPOSITION WHILE THE AUTHORITY OF PETER WAS UNQUESTIONED.
[The Epistles by the Apostles – which had been written during that period – were, in their majority, writings by Paul.]
BECAUSE THE AUTHOR WAS PAUL'S COMPANION AT THE LATER PART. BESIDES, THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IS NOT THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES BUT THE FOUR GOSPEL ACCOUNTS.
IN THE GOSPELS, FROM THE EARLY PART UNTIL THE END IT IS PETER WHO IS EXALTED OVER THE OTHER APOSTLES. ST. PAUL WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
[Even the last 16 chapters (of the overall 28 chapters) of Acts are almost exclusively dedicated to Paul’s activities, whereas they say nothing about Peter. That would have been inconceivable, if Peter did actually have a hyper-Apostolic jurisdiction.]
HA, HA, HA... WHAT PAUL WAS DOING WAS ONLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS MADE BY PETER AND THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS IN JERUSALEM. ST. PAUL WAS ONLY IMPLEMENTING WHAT PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES HAVE DECIDED UPON. IT IS NOWHERE STATED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS THAT PAUL HAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN PETER OR JAMES OR ANDREW OR JUDE OR SIMON THE ZEALOT, ETC. NEVER EVER.
BESIDES, YOUR PRAISES FOR ST. PAUL WILL NOT BE HELPFUL FOR YOUR POSITION THAT CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW ARE EQUAL WITH THE SEE OF PETER IN ROME. BECAUSE ST. PAUL IS A ROMAN CITIZEN WHO PREACHED, WAS IMPRISONED AND DIED IN ROME. IN ROME, OUR ROME, NOT YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. NOT ON MOUNT ATHOS EVEN. BUT IN ROME... OUR ROME SWEET HOME! HE, HE, HE...
ROME IS THE CHURCH OF STS. PETER AND PAUL COMBINED. SO STOP YOUR DELUSION THAT BY ELEVATING ST. PAUL INTO EQUAL STATUS WITH ST. PETER YOU CAN DIMINISH THE HONOR, DIGNITY, PRESTIGE AND AUTHORITY OF THE SEE OF ROME. O NO, NO, NO... DREAM ON... ROME IS MOST NOBLE BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD OF ST. PETER AND IT IS NOBLER STILL WITH THE ADDITION OF THE BLOOD OF ST. PAUL.
WHETHER IT IS PETER OR PAUL THE SEE OF ROME IS THE BEST. WITH PETER AND PAUL IT IS UNDENIABLY THE BEST.
SO, YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED A SINGLE BIBLE PASSAGE SUPPORTING CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. HA, HA, HA.... WHAT A VERY PATHETIC POSITION. JUST PLAIN FOOLISHNESS.
-
[Let us pray to the Lord, with zeal and humility, to lead the Roman Catholics back to the 21-century-old, ONE, HOLY, ORTHODOX, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH.]
HERETICAL. YOU DEMONICALLY CHANGED THE WORDINGS OF THE CREED. IT SHOULD BE READ: "ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH."
HOW DARE YOU CHANGE THE WORD 'CATHOLIC' TO 'ORTHODOX' SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN ARTIFICIAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR SCHISM AND HERESY.
[ Patience and prayer… Let us have complete trust in Christ and His words.]
THE WORDS OF CHRIST IS "YOU ARE PETROS AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH" [cf. Mt. 16:18-19]
THAT IS THE REAL WORD OF CHRIST.
* Matthew 16:18 "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 "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see 1 Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
* Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; Gen 43:19;44:4; 1 King 4:6;16:9;18:3; 2 King 10:5;15:5;18:18; Isa 22:15,
Isa 20-21).
* Matthew 16:19 "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.
-
* Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
* Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
* Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).
* Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).
* Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).
* Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
* Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
* Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
* Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27).
IN THE NAME OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY STOP USING THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS TO DIMINISH THE AUTHORITY THAT HE GAVE PERSONALLY TO THE BLESSED PETER SPECIFICALLY AND CATEGORICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE BIBLE AND REPLACED IT BY OTHERS WHOM THE LORD DIDN'T CHOOSE TO BE EQUAL WITH THAT OF PETER.
[ The Orthodox Church will NEVER lose the Truth;]
YOU LOST IT WHEN YOU ABANDONED THE SEE OF PETER. YOU LOST IT WHEN NESTORIUS PUT HIS 'ASS' ON THE CHAIR OF CONSTANTINOPLE.THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE BEEN PUNISHED BY GOD AND WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO THE ASHES. YOUR PRIDE IN DREAMING TO BE EQUAL WITH THE SEE OF PETER BECAME A PATHETIC DREAM WHEN YOU BECAME PEBBLES WITH THE COLLAPSE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND LOST ALL YOUR POLITICAL INFLUENCE. THE EMPIRE IS GONE BUT ROME IS STILL ROME. MAJESTIC AND NOBLE AS EVER WHILE CONSTANTINOPLE IS TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT BY ISLAM.
-
[She will NEVER submit to people, NEVER be subjugated to any “infallible” Pope,]
YOU CAN DIE IN YOUR DREAMS BUT WE WILL NEVER SUBMIT OURSELVES WITH CONSTANTINOPLE - THE ROTTING CONSTANTINOPLE. AND THE SOVIET-COMMUNISTS RESTORED PATRIARCHATE OF MOSCOW.
[because the Lord promised so.]
THE LORD PROMISED THE BLESSED PETER THAT THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. OBVIOUSLY THE GATE OF HELL PREVAILED IN CONSTANTINOPLE WHEN NESTORIUS REIGNED ON ITS VERY THRONE. HA, HA, HA...
[And the Lord keeps His promises, with integrity (Matt. 16: 18).]
HE KEPT HIS PROMISES GIVEN TO THE BLESSED PETER NOT TO ANDREW. TO ROME NOT TO CONSTANTINOPLE.
[ Do not fear, my brethren.]
WE ARE NOT AFRAID. THE ROMAN CHURCH SHALL BE VICTORIOUS OVER THE HERETICS AND THE SCHISMATICS.
[ We now have the other Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) among us, Who leads the Church to the whole Truth.]
YOUR CHURCHES DO NOT POSSESS THE HOLY SPIRIT. A CHURCH THAT CANNOT SUMMON AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IS SPIRITUALLY STERILE AND USELESS.
[It is for this reason that incessant prayer, inner cleansing, regular Sacramental living and a daily reinforcement of the Orthodox Overseas Mission work as well as our struggle against heresy should be treated as our duties.]
YOUR OVERSEAS WORKS ARE PIECE OF GARBAGE IN COMPARISON WITH CATHOLIC MISSIONS IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE MORE ORPHANAGES, LEPROSARIUMS, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, HOME FOR THE AGED, CLINICS, KITCHEN SOUPS... THAN THE UNITED NATIONS. AND WE HAVE MORE SPIRITUAL CENTERS, MONASTERIES, CONVENTS, ETC. THAN THE ORTHODOX, ANGLICANS AND PROTESTANTS COMBINED.
[The rest is in the hands of our Triadic God.]
THE TRUE FAITH WAS ENTRUSTED BY THE FATHER TO PETER:
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
GOD THE SON ENTRUSTED THE KEYS OF HEAVEN TO ST. PETER AND BUILT THE CHURCH ON HIM:
Mat 16:18 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.Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE ST. PETER HIS SPOKESPERSON AFTER HE DESCENDED ON PENTECOST:
Act 2:14 "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words"
THE HOLY TRINITY, THE ONE AND TRIUNE GOD CHOSE ST. PETER AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH NOT ANYONE ELSE.
[ He is the One Who will bring a positive outcome to all Orthodox endeavours, to all Orthodox Churches and Mission labours. Amen.]
ALL YOUR ENDEAVORS WILL BE FOR NOTHING BECAUSE YOU ARE BUILDING ON THE SAND. THE LORD BUILT ON A ROCK THAT IS PETROS. BUT YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW ARE BUILT ON SANDS NOT ON THE ROCK ON WHICH THE LORD BUILT HIS CHURCH.
VIVA EL CRISTO REY. VIVA SAN PIETRO. VIVA EL PAPA!
PART 5:
http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/10/refuting-another-orthodox-and-his-copy_20.html
No comments:
Post a Comment