| 2 Peter | ||
| English: Douay-Rheims | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | |
| 2 Peter 1 |
||
| 12. | For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. | διο ουκ αμελησω αει υμας υπομιμνησκειν περι τουτων καιπερ ειδοτας και εστηριγμενους εν τη παρουση αληθεια |
| 13. | But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. | δικαιον δε ηγουμαι εφ οσον ειμι εν τουτω τω σκηνωματι διεγειρειν υμας εν υπομνησει |
| 14. | Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. | ειδως οτι ταχινη εστιν η αποθεσις του σκηνωματος μου καθως και ο κυριος ημων ιησους χριστος εδηλωσεν μοι |
| 15. | And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. | σπουδασω δε και εκαστοτε εχειν υμας μετα την εμην εξοδον την τουτων μνημην ποιεισθαι |
| 16. | For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. | ου γαρ σεσοφισμενοις μυθοις εξακολουθησαντες εγνωρισαμεν υμιν την του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου δυναμιν και παρουσιαν αλλ εποπται γενηθεντες της εκεινου μεγαλειοτητος |
| 17. | For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. | λαβων γαρ παρα θεου πατρος τιμην και δοξαν φωνης ενεχθεισης αυτω τοιασδε υπο της μεγαλοπρεπους δοξης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εις ον εγω ευδοκησα |
| 18. | And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. | και ταυτην την φωνην ημεις ηκουσαμεν εξ ουρανου ενεχθεισαν συν αυτω οντες εν τω ορει τω αγιω |
| 19. | And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: | και εχομεν βεβαιοτερον τον προφητικον λογον ω καλως ποιειτε προσεχοντες ως λυχνω φαινοντι εν αυχμηρω τοπω εως ου ημερα διαυγαση και φωσφορος ανατειλη εν ταις καρδιαις υμων |
| 20. | Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. | τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες οτι πασα προφητεια γραφης ιδιας επιλυσεως ου γινεται |
| 21. | For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost. | ου γαρ θεληματι ανθρωπου ηνεχθη ποτε προφητεια αλλ υπο πνευματος αγιου φερομενοι ελαλησαν αγιοι θεου ανθρωποι |
Peter was speaking of his earthly life ending and that the Christians' only authority was the sure words of the prophets (Holy Scripture) as it was directly from God
He was speaking of his life ending, but he also said that he will endeavor that the Church continues in the knowledge that the Apostles witnessed to be true. That is a promise to keep his office through generations.
just because Irenaeus used the word "catholic" to designate the universal body of Christ, it does not mean the organization that calls itself "Catholic" today is that church
St. Ignatius of Antioch, not Irenaeus. If you read the letter, sounds a lot like the Church today though. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. One Catholic distinctive that St. Ignatius points out is obedience to the bishops. The other is the belief inthe Holy Eucharist. Sounds familiar?
"My Translation" has noo such designs. It IS curious, though, that what they are saying is very similar to "yours". I see no such inference of an Apostolic Succession from this, though, only that their teachings as with the other scripture were a sure basis of authority, designed so by God.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, not Irenaeus. If you read the letter, sounds a lot like the Church today though. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. One Catholic distinctive that St. Ignatius points out is obedience to the bishops. The other is the belief inthe Holy Eucharist. Sounds familiar?
Thanks for the correction, I knew the guy's name started with an "I". I also agree that he encouraged the Smyrnaeans to "obey" their own bishop in matters of faith, just as he expected those in Antioch (his own area) to obey him. I have no argument that there were overseers/bishops who bore responsibility to train the people in the faith and anoint pastors, just that he was NOT speaking of one, primal overseer to the entire, universal church. Certainly you can see that that idea NEVER worked very well when it was first decided in the fourth century - way after Ignatius was dead and gone.
Finally, I don't think Ignatius was speaking of the "Eucharist" in any way that you imply he did. He wrote the letter to counter the heresy of Docetism which denied that Jesus was God in the flesh. He wanted them to understand that the very purpose of the "Lord's Supper" was the remembrance that Jesus very much was in the flesh, that he gave this flesh and blood for the sacrifice for our sins just as the sacrifices of old were of real flesh and blood creatures for a covering for sins. He reiterated Jesus' own words that the bread was "his body" and the wine, "his blood" therefore proving that Christ was a real human being and not just a spirit.
annalex wrote, in reference to 2 Peter 1:12-15:
“He was speaking of his life ending, but he also said that he will endeavor that the Church continues in the knowledge that the Apostles witnessed to be true. That is a promise to keep his office through generations.”
That last sentence is NOT exegesis of the given text, but eisegesis pure and simple. Peter is plainly referring to the very epistle he was writing, not some office you assume he was establishing and conferring.
But you are correct in this, this is one of the very, very small handful of verses that the Roman church uses to try to establish some scriptural support for an ongoing papal office, an office which is, I might add, clearly one of development over time and not the result of scriptural definition and divine mandate.
The larger and more serious issue is this: Just as Jesus pointed out that one who trusts in himself that he is righteous (i.e. that he is justified before God on the basis of some quality in himself) must at the same time despise others (Luke 18:9ff.), so too must the dogmatic Romanist in order to defend his assertion of the superiority of Rome’s so-called holy tradition and magisterium belittle the Holy Scriptures. This is the point that will forever divided Rome from the rest of Christendom. At the same time much of the rest of Christendom is far too quick to dispense with tradition, often with no support from the Scriptures. In other words, the extreme assertion of Rome usually provokes an equally extreme reaction. This situation usually devolves into little more than a shouting match akin to the exchange of talking points such as one sees on cable news shows between political operatives of the opposite viewpoint.
The Holy Scripture has something to say about this; in fact, it has a lot to say about this, beginning with “Honor your father and your mother.” One does not disobey father and mother unless they teach or command contrary to the clear will of God. Then one must obey God rather than men.
The proper attitude is to honor and uphold tradition, i.e., that which we have received from our faithful forebears in so far as what we have received from them is in accord with God’s plain and manifest will, i.e., His written Word. The Catholic would turn this order around and have tradition sit in judgment of the written word. Many a Protestant (not all!) would too easily and lightly cast off tradition, any tradition, that seems to have any Catholic fingerprints on it. Both sides are wrong. And usually little light is generated in arguments between them, but heat and smoke abound.