The church was an integral player in the original Treaty process. We must remember that only 39 Maori leaders signed the Treaty here on these grounds years ago. Yes, the Treaty was born here at Waitangi, but the labour pains of birth continued for months as the Church — the midwife — gathered the signatures needed to ratify the Treaty. Going from tribe to tribe, Chief to Chief — forging this new covenant.
Sadly, with the passing of time, the Church — now of all denominations, failed in its responsibility to nurture this new born Treaty into maturity. It was not parented well by one of the parents or remembered by the midwife.
Covenant means death; to self and the serving of our own interests. A personal experience that my family is living with now illustrates this point. One year ago, at the age of 24 Karl was diagnosed with Leukaemia.
Three weeks ago he was told that there was nothing more the doctors could do for him. This prophet was accredited to us by God with signs and wonders following. These being the evidence of people being healed as he prayed for them. Historians will tell us that it was through petty jealousies that caused the mainline Churches to abandon him.
In spite of their doctrinal differences. However throughout his ministry, Ratana had two goals.
Ratana was deeply troubled about the Treaty or the lack of its presence. Ratana was a burden bearer — an intercessor, he heard and carried the pain of his people. Ratana had collected 40, signatures. These represented nearly three quarters of all Maori. But no one gave him any time.
London ignored him. The New Zealand government worked hard to block his efforts.
Two of these symbols were a potato and a broken watch. He carried the potato — symbolising the land that was taken and how Maori could no longer feed themselves. The broken watch — symbolised the Treaty that was broken. The Treaty of Waitangi was seen as history — no longer needed. Sadly it was cultural superiority by both the Government and the Church that caused us to miss an opportunity to begin to reconcile this Treaty covenant.
So I ask the question. How different would our nation be today if we had listened to the burden for our nation that Ratana carried those years ago? A missed opportunity — that undoubtedly scarred Ratana and his people. Much more needs to be said and much more needs to be reconciled. But the call to us is still evident. Protestant Matthew Henry 's bible commentary notes this too when he states. The first stones of that building were laid in and by their ministry; hence their names are said to be written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem.
Peter described himself as a fellow elder 1Peter , placing himself on equal footing with the other disciples. For these early writers, Peter's leading position does not carry a special status that places him in a class different from all the other disciples of Jesus, nor do they imply that Peter's personal privileges and authority are transmitted to his successors in any particular church.
Peter is often called the Prince of the Apostles. If such a special title meant that he held a special charism it was not exclusively Rome's.
Other Sees had been founded by Peter. There is no difference between the Sees of Peter. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one He himself established sic the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. Theodoret also refers to other Sees being thrones of Peter.
As all are called to be rock , and as many Sees are of Peter, Peter serves as an archetype of Apostle. When he receives the keys he represents all of the Apostles. The pope now holds the title of universal bishop. However such titles once raised the ire of popes. Pope Gregory the Great heard that Patriarch John the Faster had accepted the title ecumenical patriarch. This simply meant patriarch to the emperor, not 'universal' patriarch.
The pope wrote to the emperor to protest that any one bishop should be accorded the title universal bishop. Gregory notes that honor was bestowed upon Peter and the church in Rome — given it by an ecumenical council, but that no one person used the title.
During the controversies surrounding Pelagius' heresies a council in Mileve in Numidia found against Pelagianism. They then wrote to the pope seeking his help. They gave him much praise. Catholic apologists may make the most of such praise. However in the context of history one must also note that this praise was conditional. The next pope Zosimus did not out-rightly condemn the heresy Pelagianism and was himself condemned by the rest of the church for back-pedalling.
http://diw.agencyhype.com/17004-gua-de.php Thus the same church in Africa could lavish praise upon the church in Rome but could equally condemn them, depending on the teachings Rome upheld. Zosimus eventually reconfirmed the decision of Innocent, Pelagius went to the churches in Palestine where a synod was called to hear his case. What is important though is that even after two popes had condemned him Pelagius could still seek judgment by another region's synod.
Evidently the Palestinian churches did not see the condemnation of the church in Rome and the church in Africa as binding. The quotation is taken from Cyrpian's letter to Antonianus who was questioning whether he should be loyal to Cornelius or another claimant to the pontificate Novation. Cornelius selection as bishop of Rome was backed by sixteen bishops. Cyprian stated that Novation.
Therefore to adhere to a heretic Novation is to separate oneself from the Catholic Church. Furthermore Cyprian confirms here that the one church is divided into many bishoprics throughout the world.
He goes on to say in the same letter. Cyprian is used several times in Catholic apologetics. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? To translate primatus by 'the primacy' is to contradict the context which speaks of the Apostles as being equal in power, equally shepherds.
Cyprian was adamant that the popes had no power over him. He appealed to what he believed was always taught and this was the faith as maintained by all the Apostles. He addressed Pope Stephen not as his master, but as his equal.
Augustine agreed with Cyprian's right to decide within his local church Augustine recognises this fact. Augustine is of the belief that Cyprian might have changed his mind if a general ecumenical council had been called. Adherence to the Bishop of Rome was not "necessary" for unity. This is the orthodox understanding — bishops can be in error, including the bishop of Rome. Individual churches could disagree with each other, and still remain Catholic short of a general council deciding; it could be called in which all churches gathered and proclaimed a unity of faith.