As all good Catholics assure us, this verse refers to the church of Rome:
[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15, Douay-Rheims Bible).
Speaking of which:
[3] Salute Prisca and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, [4] (Who have for my life laid down their own necks: to whom not I only give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles,) [5] And the church which is in their house (Rom 16:3-5, Douay-Rheims Bible).
So the house of God is the church of Rome, and the church of Rome is the house of Aquila and Priscilla.
How can it be both? Well as Catholics also assure us, we must distinguish between the earthly head of the church and the heavenly head of the church.
So it follows, from Catholics premises, that Aquila and Priscilla are the vicar and vicaress of Christ.
Don’t be taken in by imposters like Benedict XVI. And for you conclavists or sedevacantists, Pius XII is just another usurper.
The Aquilan-cum-Priscillan lineage represents the true succession.
"The vicaress of Christ"
ReplyDelete"The Aquilan-cum- Priscillan lineage represents the true succession."
Statements that are sure to draw thunderous applause from Dave Armstrong, Matthew Bellisario, and the Called to Communion crowd.
To divert the topic a little, do you think that Priscilla's status as a "helper" lends credence to the possibility of deaconesses? I'm not even sure where you stand on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI think a respectable case can be made for the office of deaconess.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I suspect Priscilla's role had less to do with any "official" position in the church, and more to do with the fact that she was probably a high-society woman who enjoyed certain prerogatives which came with her social class, and used those to advance the gospel. The key is likely her social position rather than her ecclesial position.
Truly an interesting theory. However, I am not sure it will garner a serious response from the Called to Communion crowd.
ReplyDeleteWeren't they married?
ReplyDeleteYes, husband and wife. However, she may have married down.
ReplyDeleteI love this!
ReplyDeleteAmazing how you can read things for years and never make the connection.
The Church in Rome started where?
I think Scripture trumps Tradition quite nicely here.
(reposted to fix typo, original deleted)
ReplyDelete> As all good Catholics assure us,
> this verse refers to the church
> of Rome:
>
>[15] But if I tarry long, that
> thou mayest know how thou
> oughtest to behave thyself in
> the house of God, which is the
> church of the living God, the
> pillar and ground of the truth
> (1 Tim 3:15, Douay-Rheims Bible).
sw: This is a bit of false information. 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to the Church WHERE EVER it is.
> Speaking of which:
> [3] Salute Prisca and Aquila, my
> helpers in Christ Jesus, [4]
> (Who have for my life laid down
> their own necks: to whom not I
> only give thanks, but also all
> the churches of the Gentiles,)
> [5] And the church which is in
> their house (Rom 16:3-5, Douay-
> Rheims Bible).
>
> So the house of God is the
> church of Rome, and the church
> of Rome is the house of Aquila
> and Priscilla.
sw: Mr Hays has taken two verses, out of context, and established quite the straw man argument. The church which met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla was indeed A church in Rome but that is not to be equivocated to what is now called THE Church OF Rome.
> How can it be both? Well as
> Catholics also assure us, we
> must distinguish between the
> earthly head of the church and
> the heavenly head of the church.
>
> So it follows, from Catholics
> premises, that Aquila and
> Priscilla are the vicar and
> vicaress of Christ.
sw: From straw man to equivocation and now to non sequitur. Just hosting a church in Rome does not equate to being selected by Christ Himself to be His vicar.
sw: The silliness continues:
> Don’t be taken in by imposters
> like Benedict XVI. And for you
> conclavists or sedevacantists,
> Pius XII is just another usurper.
>
> The Aquilan-cum-Priscillan
> lineage represents the true
> succession.
sw: Mr. Hays presents out of context equivocations and non sequiturs - then presents us with a wholly faulty (invalid) conclusion.
sw: Will we have seen the end of this foolishness? I doubt it.
Another response.
sw: To Mr. Hays credit, the following statement is more in line with reality:
However, I suspect Priscilla's role had less to do with any "official" position in the church, and more to do with the fact that she was probably a high-society woman who enjoyed certain prerogatives which came with her social class, and used those to advance the gospel. The key is likely her social position rather than her ecclesial position.
sw: I agree with that statement! The fact that she and Aquila had a house big enough to host "church" within it says something about their status, socially, unless it was a very small gathering of Christians.