IS the "Church" the same as the "Roman Catholic Church"? [Archive]

JoeT777

Feb 22, 2010, 10:56 AM

There are many who claim that Peter was given authority directly by Jesus Christ and that Peter established the Church. The claim is also that that Church is the Roman Catholic Church and the same the Bride of Christ. Is this True?

JoeT777

Ok I will start another thread for our discussion. It will be titled "IS the 'Church' the same as the 'Roman Catholic Church'?". I hope you Join me there.

I noticed that you've only posted a few times, welcome. Before I answer your questions I want to explain why it may appear that I'm not debating the issue 'directly'. If you haven't noticed, the forum is set up to respond to questions. As I understand it, to follow the rules, which I must confess I don't always do, all responses should be in some why directed at the opening proposition. If one or more start throwing around ad hominem and invectives then the moderator will close the question.

Based on the tone of the question I'm guessing you are a scripture-only Christian. By this I mean that the bible is considered the sole rule of faith. I don't limit myself to 'bible-only', but I'll try as best I can to somehow relate my response to scripture in deference to your tradition. If you reference authors outside the bible please cite the source. It would be helpful if you would cite an internet source so I can look it up. Context can be very important so that we don't, as it were, speak past each other.

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again here as a start to answering your last question; “is the Roman Catholic Church and the same the Bride of Christ”. Catholics hold that 'The Bride of Christ' is a metaphor of the union of Christ with His Church, i.e. The Mystical Body of Christ. This is similar to a marriage union between a man and his bride. The children from this mystical union are the faithful. Scripture gives us a vivid image of a bridegroom coming to claim and marry his bride in multiple ways. The following verses are examples:

The Bride of Christ

Apocalypse 21:9-10: And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he took me up in spirit to a great and high mountain: and he shewed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

Ephesians 5:22-33: Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14: For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many.

One Body, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.

Matthew 9:15: And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

Children of the Bridgroom are the faithful

Mark 2:19: And Jesus saith to them: Can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

John: 3:26-30: And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.

The friend of the bridegroom is John (all emphasis is mine.)

JoeT

letmetellu

Feb 22, 2010, 01:54 PM

I want to read what more people have to say abour this.

Feb 22, 2010, 01:57 PM

Didn't we just do this same question?

JoeT777

Feb 22, 2010, 02:01 PM

didn't we just do this same question?

Yeah, I think so. It seems like it never ends.

450donn

Feb 22, 2010, 03:27 PM

Might as well recycle the other thread and all the negative posts.

JoeT777

Feb 22, 2010, 03:32 PM

Might as well recycle the other thread and all the negative posts.

I agree, we can do away with the negative posts and keep mine.

JoeT

P.S. In all seriousness, I haven't done it, but I wonder if you went back and looked at that other thread, how many actually submitted a post that attempted to answer the question? How many were constructive in terms of the OP?

arcura

Feb 22, 2010, 06:58 PM

inhisservice,
To answer your question directly, Yes, so the Holy Bible indicates.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Feb 22, 2010, 10:45 PM

JoeT777

Yes I am a "Bible only" Christian. I believe contains the truth and I also believe that anything against or contradictory to the truth is false. Now lets come to the subject.

I would like to remind here that our discussion hear is weather the Roman Catholic Church is The Bride. It is not weather the Lamb has a Bride or not. I agree that the Bible says that The Church is The Bride. But is that Church the same as the Roman Catholic Church? That is our discussion. Keeping that in mind let us look at the verses that you have quoted.

1. You quoted Rev. 21:9-10. This verse says that the Lamb has a Bride. I agree with this.

2. Next you quoted Ephesians 5:22-33. These verses tell us that the Bride is the Church. I agree to this also.

3. Then you quoted 1 Corinthians 12:12-14. The verse says that we are all the body and Christ is the Head. I agree. But this verse also says For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body... This means that whoever is Baptized in the Spirit is a part of the body (The Church). You could only say that Body is the RC if you under the belief that those who are not baptized into the RC are not Baptized in the Spirit. That would be a wrong assumption. Because there are many people who have been baptized and on whom God has shown his approval by blessing those people with various blessings.

In fact the Bible never says that St.Peter ever organized any church nor are there any indication that St.Peter was the head of any such institution. He had his ministry and St.Paul had his ministry. St.John had his ministry and so did St.Thomas. Each had their own ministry and it is never stated that they were under St.Peter's rule or he headed them. It is agreed that St.Peter was and an elder. In fact from what St.Paul says in Gal 2:9 we can understand that St.Peter, St.John and St.James (not the brother of St.John) were (actually "seemed to be") the pillars of the Church. So that was the position of St. Peter - one among the three pillars.

In short you have not provided any verse that support you claim yet.

arcura

Feb 22, 2010, 11:48 PM

inhisservice,
The bible and authentic history point directly to the fact that Peter was appointed by Jesus to be the Leader of His Church.
All of Jesus' apostles and disciples were members of That Church.
Not only that but Jesus made Peter the Prime Minister of His Church and earthly Kingdom by giving Peter the keys to heaven.
The book of Acts tells all that Peter was acknowledged to be the leader of The Church and that Peter went to Rome and therefore established The Church headquarters there.
Historic documents show that is just what he did.
Note this...
"And Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." - Matt. 16:16-18.
It is perfectly clear that Jesus was talking to and about Peter.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 23, 2010, 08:39 AM

As usual Fred you have/are taking one part totally our of context.
The word Peter "Petros" means small stone. Jesus uses a play on words here with petra, which means a foundation boulder. Since the NT makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the FOUNDATION and head of the church. It is a mistake to assume there here he is giving either of those roles to Peter.
JN 1:24, AC4:11-12,1CO 3:11,EPH 5:23

JoeT777

Feb 23, 2010, 10:35 AM

Then you quoted 1 Corinthians 12:12-14. The verse says that we are all the body and Christ is the Head. I agree. But this verse also says For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body... This means that whoever is Baptized in the Spirit is a part of the body (The Church). You could only say that Body is the RC if you under the belief that those who are not baptized into the RC are not Baptized in the Spirit. That would be a wrong assumption. Because there are many people who have been baptized and on whom God has shown his approval by blessing those people with various blessings.

You might be partially right if it were to end at verse 14, except that it doesn't end there. Paul continues explaining just what the 'body of Christ' consists of: “Now you are the body of Christ and members of member. And God indeed has set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But be zealous for the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:27-31) In this we see among other things an organization, a corporate body. FIRST the Apostle, SECOND prophet, THIRD interpretations of speeches, i.e. doctors. This is 'CHURCH.' And this Church is of ONE spirit, which is a unified society (family) of beliefs and tenets. This body is held together so tightly that “if one member [of the Body of Christ] suffer anything, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.“ "And he[Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy.” (Col 1:18.) And we see that the Head yet lives even though Christ no longer walks among us – he decreeds that His Body rule in its's place. “Let no man seduce you, willing in humility and religion of angels, walking in the things which he has not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh: If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world?” (Col 2:18-20). And all things, not some, not just our faith, not just our secular governments, not just the natural world, not just the spiritual world, but all things are subject to Him; “And he has subjected all things under his feet and has made him head over all the church, 23 which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. “ (Eph 1:22-23). An Ecclesial body like the body that contained the inherited seat of Moses, beyond the Sanhedrin, one that included the entire body of believers not just Jews; “That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: and copartners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel (Eph. 3:9). This is to last forever (Eph 4:13). This body includes the Church Militant, those of us here on earth, the Church Suffering , the souls in Purgatory, and the Church Triumphant , those who have received their glory in Heaven; one wholeness with Christ (1 Cor 12:12). I'm sure the metaphor is complete the Body of Christ is the Church, the Church of that day is the Church we call the Roman Catholic Church today.

I stated that you 'might be partially right,' that was an error. One can't divide an absolute into parcels of partial absolutes - it no longer is the absolute thing that it was, likewise you can't divide an absolute truth – so you can never be partially right. There is but ONE true Church constituted by Jesus Christ

This supports the claim of the Roman Catholic, not my claim. I wouldn't be bold enough to make such a claim, I'm a pew warmer. We don't 'priest' unto ourselves.

In fact the Bible never says that St.Peter ever organized any church nor are there any indication that St.Peter was the head of any such institution. He had his ministry and St.Paul had his ministry. St.John had his ministry and so did St.Thomas. Each had their own ministry and it is never stated that they were under St.Peter's rule or he headed them. It is agreed that St.Peter was and an elder. In fact from what St.Paul says in Gal 2:9 we can understand that St.Peter, St.John and St.James (not the brother of St.John) were (actually "seemed to be") the pillars of the Church. So that was the position of St. Peter - one among the three pillars.

We can discuss the boulder, rocks, stones, and little pebbles later.

So, different people with different jobs can't be contained within the same organization? How many churches do you reckon Christ started? Did they include Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and Evangelist? Or where they called something else? How many ONE's do you think Christ was thinking of when he said ”And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-23) And how many ONEness's do you think Paul was referring to when he said ” Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” Maybe this is any'ol ONE or all of the Someone's, maybe EVERYBODYs?

Let's see, I run an office of a large number of people, a company you might say. I've divided some of the work load among various different people, when I refer to them, they are 'THE COMPANY' not the file clerk, the project manager, the accountant. They are all of the same 'company spirit' – at least they better be! What you're proposing is [an 'office' of 12 independent men each with a different company who work for themselves, not me, i.e. a pillar unto themselves]. So, you can build twelve houses each with a single pillar? I can't. The Holy Architect built ONE house with 12 pillars.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 23, 2010, 02:38 PM

450donn,
Sorry, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic and there is NO little stone word in that language.
Both Jesus and Peter are referred to as a rock in Holy Scripture.
And Peter means rock not pebble.
That's the way it is even though some folks refuse to accept the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 23, 2010, 03:44 PM

JoeT777

Feb 23, 2010, 04:29 PM

You read Aramaric?
According to Wikipedia the correct meaning is:
Peter is a common masculine given name. It is derived, via Latin "petra", from the Greek word πετρος (petros) meaning "stone" or "rock".[1]

According to the New Testament, Jesus gave Saint Peter (whose given name was Simon) the name Kephas or Cephas meaning "stone" in Aramaic.[2]
So Fred, will you admit you are wrong yet again?

When you have a piece of the Rock, who needs Prudential!

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man's name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ's words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew's Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 23, 2010, 04:29 PM

450donn,
Sorry, I was right.
Stone and rock are the same thing, not a pebble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

arcura

Feb 23, 2010, 04:42 PM

JoeT,
Well said,
Well done.
Fred

450donn

Feb 23, 2010, 05:01 PM

450donn,
Sorry, I was right.
Stone and rock are the same thing, not a pebble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
So if you were to skip a?? Across a pond would be a "stone""rock" or"pebble"
Since the words can be interchangeable I don't see any logic in your argument.

Fr_Chuck

Feb 23, 2010, 07:06 PM

Thus the issue, many churches ( even those not Roman Catholic) view this as talking to Peter, and saw Peter as the leader of the other Apostles,

Those that do not want to accept Peter as the Leader of the Apostles and also connect this to Apostolic Succession of their ministers and/or Bishops. Have to reject this.

While of course those same churches, also reject tradition, this was the accepted teaching and belief for over 1500 years until some of the newer churches in my opinion had to redefine the meanings of scripture to fit their personal teachings.

Thus it is not really Catholic vs others, but Apostolic Succession churches, such as the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Old Catholic, Episcopal. Even the Lutheran ( which no longer fall under Apostolic Succession, taught that Peter was the rock that the church was built on.

So in fact it is only a very small group of Christians that don't accept this as proper scripture

arcura

Feb 23, 2010, 08:25 PM

450donn,
I'm not skipping anything.
My faith is set in stone.
That is the Rock on which Jesus established His Church and first on the one and only triune God which The Catholic Church taught about from the first.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Feb 24, 2010, 12:26 AM

arcura

There are reasons Peter cannot be the rock.

1. The New testament (The Spirit inspired scripture) was written in Greek. In this language there were two separate words used to mean a small stone and a big rock. It is clearly seen there that Peter is a small stone.
2. Peter in many places is named Cephas which is interpreted for us as a stone in John's Gospel.

You said "The book of Acts tells all that Peter was acknowledged to be the leader of The Church and that Peter went to Rome and therefore established The Church headquarters there."

Please quote verses for this.

inhisservice

Feb 24, 2010, 01:24 AM

inhisservice

Feb 24, 2010, 01:46 AM

JoeT777

Feb 24, 2010, 10:29 AM

JoeT777

You gave a big explanation to the Church and the body of Christ and the various people in it. I agree to all. But again you suddenly state out of the blue

...the Church of that day is the Church we call the Roman Catholic Church today.
How do you say this? Does the Bible ever allude to this?

There was no great leap to surmise that the early Church is the same Church as the Roman Catholic Church. There is evidence of the early Church in the Gospels, Acts and the epistles, in various secular writings of the day, from the early Church Fathers, doctors (theologians) as well as historians (both Catholic and secular) - from Christ's age to the present age. For a start, try Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340), he chronicles the history of the Church as it was known up to about 300 A.D.; it's a bit long but a good resource. CHURCH FATHERS: Home (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html)

You don't seem to understand my position.

But I do understand. The 'Church' isn't about denominations; that is, we hold a little of that, they hold to a little of this and yet somehow we are all the same. Scripture is clear that Christ wants us heart, mind and soul in one spirit of faith.

Well let me explain. Jesus Christ established one Church. That Church is not any particular denomination. All believers together form the Church. The believers are all a part of ONE body. The head of this Church is Jesus Christ and Peter was one of the three main apostles at that time.

You haven't really explained anything; this is a statement of faith. If we are One in the spirit of Christ how come you hold one faith and I another? Which is correct?

Non-Catholics must by their nature proclaim themselves (individually or collectively) supreme arbiter of Divine truth. Scripture itself become the sole and infallible 'rule of faith'. This is quite often done by invoking the Holy Spirit. But, no one individual can authenticate or hold authority over the meaning of that Scripture. They might say, “I know my understanding of Scripture is correct because the Holy Spirit tells me so”. But, what's lost is the fact that other non-Catholic kinsman makes the same claim with a different “truth”. Which is correct? Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law or Divine law. This trait non-Catholic Christian is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy doctrine independent of God's will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; thus we often hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." If it's a matter of God's truth it must be the same correctness for both, as God's Will (Truth) is immutable. This ideology becomes progressively independent of God's authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority. Further tracking the liberal trait of autonomous authority over morality it can be seen to become asymptotic to atheism – and arriving at that point in short order. While still holding a Christian like caricature, this progresses to the point where God is no longer needed (or wanted); thereby God ceases to exist in the heart and mind.

There weren't just three Apostles, there was twelve. All of which were equal, Peter was considered first among equals; the Twelve were in the spirit of Christ. The early Church, as is the current Catholic Church, has an ecclesiastical form of government that was (is) basically patristic; not quit democratic, not quite an oligarchy, and was never a dictatorship. To my knowledge there are only two doctrines in 2,000 years that aren't explicitly spelled out in Scripture; the doctrine of the Trinity at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, and Pope Pius IX used the chair of Peter for the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary by decree of found in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854. Even in these two cases, we find both Scriptural support and Apostolic Tradition as a basis for the doctrine.

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 24, 2010, 11:01 AM

The problem is that in Corinthians Paul tells that Jesus is the foundation. Thus Jesus is the head we are his body.

Also as I said earlier Peter is never mentioned in Acts as a leader. In fact Paul once opposed Peter for wrong behavior. Paul would not do that if Peter was in an office such as one that today's Pope holds.

Also could anybody explain this to me. Jerusalem is called the Holy City and has great importance in God's eyes as we see in the Old Testament. Why then would the Apostles shift the "head quarters" to Rome? Where is the Biblical basis for this claim?

When we develop property and build a large or significant building, the name of the founder (the authority) is usually taken as the name of the building and the foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder’s Church; primarily because of his declaration of faith.

The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder. It seems to strain the issue if we believe that designating Peter as the foundation somehow diminishes the importance of Christ. Another gnat to strain on, the metaphor works all the better because Simon was renamed “rock,” that is a very firm foundation.

Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.

JoeT

sndbay

Feb 24, 2010, 12:41 PM

The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder.

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

It seems to strain the issue if we believe that designating Peter as the foundation somehow diminishes the importance of Christ. Another gnat to strain on, the metaphor works all the better because Simon was renamed “rock,” that is a very firm foundation.

As difficult as it may seem for you to understand, the interpretation of Peter's name was meant as unyielding. The unyielding rock to whom confessed love for Christ Jesus. Spiritual SIGNIFICANCE is that Peter repeated his confession 3 times. Yes Lord, I love you!

However why you feel the RRC can assume they then hold any right to say authority was somehow handed over from Peter to them, when the RRC gather and rejoice as sinners. It is written that the sinner is not born of God. But in fact are children of satan.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.

JoeT

NO Joe, as it is written (Revel 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. )

Revel 25:26 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

We are not to boast individually, but rather boast concerning the law of Faith! It is the written law that Christ Jesus has commanded us in Love.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

This was what Peter was unyielding in his confession, the rock in Love and Faith for Jesus Christ!

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

JoeT777

Feb 24, 2010, 07:58 PM

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

As difficult as it may seem for you to understand, the interpretation of Peter's name was meant as unyielding. The unyielding rock to whom confessed love for Christ Jesus. Spiritual SIGNIFICANCE is that Peter repeated his confession 3 times. Yes Lord, I love you!

However why you feel the RRC can assume they then hold any right to say authority was somehow handed over from Peter to them, when the RRC gather and rejoice as sinners. It is written that the sinner is not born of God. But in fact are children of satan.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

NO Joe, as it is written (Revel 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. )

Revel 25:26 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

We are not to boast individually, but rather boast concerning the law of Faith! It is the written law that Christ Jesus has commanded us in Love.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

This was what Peter was unyielding in his confession, the rock in Love and Faith for Jesus Christ!

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Help me out Sndbay, what does metaphor mean?

JoeT

arcura

Feb 24, 2010, 08:44 PM

sndbay,
That still does NOT change the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to be the first leader of His Church who were at first all apostles (bishops) and disciples under Peter's authority who went out and gathered together congregations so sayus the bible and history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fr_Chuck

Feb 24, 2010, 08:55 PM

Again, I can not see where anyone can dispute that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. And of course I can not image anyone not seeing the connections of the early churches, and their history, Of course in the early church Rome was just one of the many centers of the Church, and as time went on, though the early church, it was divided by location, with the East and West Church looking at different Centers for leadership. This early church was just that, the church, with argumement at time as to principle leadership. This disagreemen lead to the split of the East and West, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox in the 1000-1100 time frame.

But the history of both show the history of how the early church lead to their churches today.

And all Bishops of borth, along with the Bishops of the Anglican churches, trace their lines back to the original Apostles. * just as I do my own lines of succession

450donn

Feb 24, 2010, 09:50 PM

So y'all are trying to make a totally illogical connection to Peter. ONE of the Apostles to justify your existence? WHY?? How can you make this connection with a straight face when the RCC was not established until? How many years after Peter's death?

inhisservice

Feb 24, 2010, 10:05 PM

JoeT777

There is evidence of the early Church in the Gospels, Acts and the epistles,

Yes there is but where is the evidence in the scripture that the early church is the RC?

Non-Catholics must by their nature proclaim themselves (individually or collectively) supreme arbiter of Divine truth. Scripture itself become the sole and infallible 'rule of faith'. This is quite often done by invoking the Holy Spirit. But, no one individual can authenticate or hold authority over the meaning of that Scripture.

First of all a Christian is one who follows Christ and the Word of God that is the Holy Scriptures. God is not bothered about which denomination you are. Do you believe in His Son? That is what is important. When we do so He gives us His promised Counselor the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will..

..teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Joh 14:26

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Christian of himself does not claim any authority but the Holy Spirit does posses authority. If the Holy Spirit dwells in a person why should one ignore that Spirit and go seeking for someone else for understanding the scripture? Or do you intend to say that the Holy Spirit only dwells in the people belonging to RC?

Next a question that would arise is how do we trust any understanding of the scripture that comes to us from within ourselves? Or how do we know if a particular understanding is from the Holy Spirit? The answer is Psa 36:9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light. The explanation to a Scripture is given to us by the Holy Spirit through other Scriptures. In other words the Holy Spirit interprets scripture by scripture.

But, what's lost is the fact that other non-Catholic kinsman makes the same claim with a different “truth”. Which is correct? Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law or Divine law.

The scripture is truth. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. A proper study of the scripture will never lead us to two "Truths". If two people seem to arrive at different truths by reading the scriptures it is only because one of them is not Spirit led. A Spirit led study will lead to only one truth.

A Christian then recognizes that he does not have any freedom but is a slave to Christ. 1Co 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. As a servant he knows that it is not his will but the Will of the Father that has to be done. Thus a Christian would never give attention to his won will.

Peter was considered first among equals; the Twelve were in the spirit of Christ.

I would disagree. Please show me some scriptures to support this.

To my knowledge there are only two doctrines in 2,000 years that aren't explicitly spelled out in Scripture;

I would say it is not two but numerous. Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, Ever virginity of Mary etc and list goes on. One question would be "How would you trust as authentic any doctrine that does not have a scriptural base?" Note: Some doctrines like the trinity do have scriptural support but many others do not have any support.

The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder.

This is scripturally wrong as sndbay points out. Christ is both the founder and the foundation.

arcura

Feb 24, 2010, 10:07 PM

Fr_Chuck,
Thanks for that post.
It is clear and accurate.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Feb 24, 2010, 10:09 PM

sndbay

Good work. May God Bless you. Keep up the good work

arcura

Feb 24, 2010, 10:14 PM

inhisservice,
It is not scripturally wrong.
Jesus told Peter three times "lead my sheep" and that is what Peter did.
As I explained earlier the bible calls what Jesus estabished as MY Church, "The Church".
Later because of necessity the name Catholic was added to it to show that it was and is the Universal Church.
That's the way it was and still is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 24, 2010, 11:47 PM

JoeT777
Yes there is but where is the evidence in the scripture that the early church is the RC?
[QUOTE]First of all a Christian is one who follows Christ and the Word of God that is the Holy Scriptures.

I thought you were going to stick to scripture? Now I believe that Scripture is Holy and inspired by God. That’s why I try very hard to be factual when using ‘the Word of God’. When I checked , I could only find one verse that spoke of the Word of God that implied that we should follow. But, it doesn’t say follow the ‘Word of God’. It says to follow faith taught by our prelates. Prelates are bishops, archbishops, etc. This would imply to follow ‘Church’.

Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation (Hebrews 13:7)

Other similar verses indicate that we are to follow Christ’ e.g, But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead (Matthew 8:22 ) :

Have you got another ‘first’; this one doesn’t work for me.

God is not bothered about which denomination you are. Do you believe in His Son? That is what is important. When we do so He gives us His promised Counselor the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will.

..teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Joh 14:26.

But in this verse it’s the “Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send … who will teach you all things. “ (John 14:26)

I would suggest he’s very jealous of His Church, wouldn’t seem to be much of a God that wasn’t. This is exactly what Pual teaches when he tells us that he ‘married’ us to one Church and he’s a jealous God.

For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2)

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Christian of himself does not claim any authority but the Holy Spirit does posses authority. If the Holy Spirit dwells in a person why should one ignore that Spirit and go seeking for someone else for understanding the scripture? Or do you intend to say that the Holy Spirit only dwells in the people belonging to RC?

Who are you refereeing to when you say, ‘the Christian of himself’? You lost me. What this verse teaches is clear; “will guide you into all truth…” is Christ telling the Apostles, that the Holy Ghost is promised to them and their successors, to teach and preserve unity and truth. See also John 14:26

Next a question that would arise is how do we trust any understanding of the scripture that comes to us from within ourselves? Or how do we know if a particular understanding is from the Holy Spirit? The answer is Psa 36:9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light. The explanation to a Scripture is given to us by the Holy Spirit through other Scriptures. In other words the Holy Spirit interprets scripture by scripture.

Are you saying that the New Testament was written by Apostles who reacted to God’s will robotically; if so, shouldn’t we be calling them ‘God-bots’ instead of Apostles? If the Gospel of St. Matthew appeared on his desk one day, literally written by the finger of God, shouldn’t we be about worshiping the Book? I agree that Holy Scriptures were written by the Apostles but not under some zombie like trance. I hold to all the attributes referred to in the Psalms. However, Scriptures are a result of what Catholics might refer to as a special case of Holy Tradition. That is to say, the Apostles taught first by word of mouth then from the experiences in their life, from their nearness to Christ, from inspiration given them by the Paraclete they wrote their Gospels and Epistles.

The scripture is truth. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. A proper study of the scripture will never lead us to two "Truths". If two people seem to arrive at different truths by reading the scriptures it is only because one of them is not Spirit led. A Spirit led study will lead to only one truth.

The authority to, as it were, infallibly rule is given to the Catholic Church. The full deposit of faith is was given the constituted Body of Christ; Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt 28:19-20, also see John 20:21) . This is a commission of The Twelve and is passed down to their successors.

A Christian then recognizes that he does not have any freedom but is a slave to Christ. 1Co 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. As a servant he knows that it is not his will but the Will of the Father that has to be done. Thus a Christian would never give attention to his won will.

I would say it is not two but numerous. Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, Ever virginity of Mary etc and list goes on. One question would be "How would you trust as authentic any doctrine that does not have a scriptural base?" Note: Some doctrines like the trinity do have scriptural support but many others do not have any support.

I wouldn’t either if I was a sola Scripturist, I would want to know who vouchsafes the very bible I have in my hand. Your King James version isn’t validated by the Roman Catholic Church, so what men validate the bible? Who keeps it True? Who vouches that the keeper is true? What happens when, amongst the sola people, a disagreement arises over what is meant in scripture, do you simple create a new ‘church’?

JoeT

arcura

Feb 25, 2010, 12:09 AM

450donn

Feb 25, 2010, 08:21 AM

JoeT,
Yes, I think that many have stared a so called new church,
Of the over 30,000 different denominations there are some that are so crewball that they kill themselves and their members. Others have no quite gone that far but nearly so.
What amazes me is that some of them have attracted hundreds of followers. Are they not thinking people?
It is the blind leading the blind?
I fear so.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, Are you referring to Cults? Please carefully check the definition of a Cult. You will discover that ANY organization that uses books or teachings of man other that the complete word of God could be considered a cult!

NeedKarma

Feb 25, 2010, 08:35 AM

Fred, Are you referring to Cults? Please carefully check the definition of a Cult. You will discover that ANY organization that uses books or teachings of man other that the complete word of God could be considered a cult!Actually that is incorrect. The definition of the word cult does not care which/whose teachings they are: Cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult)

450donn

Feb 25, 2010, 08:46 AM

This is from Wikipedia on line dictionary.
"Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister.[1] The term was originally used to denote a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is a result of the anti-cult movement, which uses the term in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous."

NeedKarma

Feb 25, 2010, 09:28 AM

I agree with that. Any fanatical group that does the stuff you highlighted in red fits the definition. And it follows that any group that has teachings that does not do that is not a cult.

sndbay

Feb 25, 2010, 12:35 PM

I thought you were going to stick to scripture? Now I believe that Scripture is Holy and inspired by God. That's why I try very hard to be factual when using 'the Word of God'. When I checked , I could only find one verse that spoke of the Word of God that implied that we should follow. But, it doesn't say follow the 'Word of God'. It says to follow faith taught by our prelates. Prelates are bishops, archbishops, etc. This would imply to follow 'Church'.

Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation (Hebrews 13:7)

JoeT

Consider the end of their conversation. Why ? Because the Word of God in that chapter and verse goes on to say, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever.

This is why if anyone is being carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is good thing that the heart be established with grace. Grace is Christ Jesus, Grace is the Love of God. Again and again the scriptures tell us what Peter himself confessed. YES LORD I love you!! GRACE (Hebrews 13:9)

Hebrew 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

So indeed remember their conversation, because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Hebrew 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

This is exactly why the doctrine of Jesus Christ will always be the same. We follow Christ Jesus, we hear HIS voice. Because we live by every Word that proceedeth from the mouth of GOD !(Matthew 4:4)

NOW Joe, are you telling me I am wrong in what I believe? I follow Christ Jesus, I hear HIS Voice, I love the Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus! I trust in HIS promise of the NEW COVENANT. I am begotten again in CHRIST JESUS. And I am keep by the power of God through ONE FAITH.

1 Peter 1:3-4-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

This is not a faith that rest in a denomination or in the RRC. My ONE FAITH REST in CHRIST JESUS.

~in Christ

sndbay

Feb 25, 2010, 01:02 PM

sndbay

Good work. May God Bless you. Keep up the good work

God has blessed me, and I pray everyday that I can be all HE created me to be, with HIS hand of power doing HIS will.

I fully understand also that those that do not see, and do not hear HIS voice, and do not believe in HIS worthiness to set us free from sin are beguiled by satan.

Jesus said to the Jew, the leaders known as the Pharisees, and Scribes
John 8: 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Those that follow Christ, are begotten again in the Christ Jesus and are Sanctify with the Holy Spirit
John 17:15-16-17 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God grace be with you
~in Christ

NeedKarma

Feb 25, 2010, 01:07 PM

I fully understand also that those that do not see, and do not hear HIS voice, and do not believe in HIS worthiness to set us free from sin are beguiled by satanI don't hear his voice so I guess... http://kenr.co.uk/devil_waving_md_wht.gif

:)

sndbay

Feb 25, 2010, 02:11 PM

I don't hear his voice so I guess....http://kenr.co.uk/devil_waving_md_wht.gif

:)

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

arcura

Feb 25, 2010, 05:54 PM

450donn,
Yes I do think that some of the over 30,000 denominations are dangerous cults, BUT they are listed as Christian Denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 25, 2010, 08:18 PM

OK Fred, you opened the door. How about naming a few for us less enlightened ones.

JoeT777

Feb 25, 2010, 09:04 PM

Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same forever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats: which have not profited those that walk in them.

This is why if anyone is being carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is good thing that the heart be established with grace. Grace is Christ Jesus, Grace is the Love of God. Again and again the scriptures tell us what Peter himself confessed. YES LORD I love you!! GRACE (Hebrews 13:9)

You’re absolutely correct in your assessment, it is a grace given through the Church, a all inclusive fullness of the heart.

The contention is that the grace given here is salvific grace, presumably from avoiding divers and strange doctrines. Not quite right. You would be more right to consider that “the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy: Because in him, it has well pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell” (Col 1:18-19). As you’ve stated many times all graces come from God. The firstborn from the dead, Christ is that body referred to here, that is Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Church. Christ “is firstborn from the dead, and who holds primacy pleases the Father,’ then so too would be “His Mystical Body please the Father in all fullness. All the things received by Christ are given to the Church.” (Cf. John 16:15). Now fullness can describe many things, fullness of grace, fullness in God’s glory, fullness in God’s hope, fullness of faith, etc. But, this is the DADDY of all FULLNESSes this is a DIVINE FULLNESS. This thing that might rightly be called, ‘All-fullness’ is given to Christ which in turn is given the Church. So too, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1). By the proclamation of made in the Gospel of John 16:15 this grace would be added to the cornucopia of All-Fullness. Add that this too was prophetic, “He prepared them bread in the first place unto fullness: for the sacrifices also of the Lord they shall eat, which he gave to him, and to his seed.“ (Sirach 45:26). Consequently, we can see why in the Paul’s Epistle, it is best that we walk in this All-Fullness because “it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats: which have not profited those that walk in them.” Where do we get ‘All-Fullness’? Did you miss it? It is in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is in Christ, and Christ is in the Church, a dichotomy similar to the Eucharist; it’s the Real Presence of Christ that consumes us as we consume it bite by bite.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 25, 2010, 10:22 PM

450donn,
I would, but I don't know them all. Just those that have been in the news such as Heaven's Gate, Jonesburrow, The group in Europe which killed themselves (I've forgotten the name).
Also the Asian group whose name translates to "Jesus died for us so we die for him". The leaders do the killing of the followers after the followers donate all their possessions to the group.
There are more but over the years I've forgotten many names.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Feb 25, 2010, 11:49 PM

JoeT777

When I checked , I could only find one verse that spoke of the Word of God that implied that we should follow. But, it doesn’t say follow the ‘Word of God’. It says to follow faith taught by our prelates. Prelates are bishops, archbishops, etc. This would imply to follow ‘Church’.

First of all there are verses that do indicate that we need to follow the word of God. For example this verse says it all:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

We need the Scriptures to live i.e. the Eternal Life.

The verse you quoted is right in saying that we should follow the faith of the "leaders". That would refer to the Apostles. You would find that they strictly stuck to the scriptures. Paul for one strictly followed the Old Testament and a familiarity with the OT will show that he has quoted extensively from it in his letters.

How do you say that the "prelates" are bishops, archbishops, etc?

Who are you refereeing to when you say, ‘the Christian of himself’? You lost me. What this verse teaches is clear; “will guide you into all truth…” is Christ telling the Apostles, that the Holy Ghost is promised to them and their successors, to teach and preserve unity and truth. See also John 14:26

You had said that "Non-Catholics must by their nature proclaim themselves (individually or collectively) supreme arbiter ". That non-catholic is a person I referred to as a Christian.

The Holy Spirit is not promised for a reserved few. It is promised for anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and accepts Him as his savior.

Are you saying that the New Testament was written by Apostles who reacted to God’s will robotically; if so, shouldn’t we be calling them ‘God-bots’ instead of Apostles? If the Gospel of St. Matthew appeared on his desk one day, literally written by the finger of God, shouldn’t we be about worshiping the Book?

The Apostles were Spirit led. That means that the Holy Spirit guided them in whatever (important) they did. In Acts you will find that the Holy Spirit tells Peter to go with Cornelius' men. Paul plans something but the Holy Spirit prevents him. So they were led by the Holy Spirit. So when they wrote the Holy Spirit worked in them. So yes the Scriptures are God breathed and should be given great reverence. But we obviously should not worship it be cause specifically taught us (quoting the OT) that we should worship only God. Interestingly Jesus himself quoted a lot from the Scriptures.

The authority to, as it were, infallibly rule is given to the Catholic Church.

That's a blind faith. Where is the evidence?

The full deposit of faith is was given the constituted Body of Christ;

True but is the RC the Body of Christ? That is the question.

This is a commission of The Twelve and is passed down to their successors.

Only the twelve? No. In fact all Jesus Christ commissioned all of us. Otherwise why was Paul, Appolos, Timothy, Titus etc. going around making disciples?

I wouldn’t either if I was a sola Scripturist, I would want to know who vouchsafes the very bible I have in my hand.

The Holy Spirit. He protects the Scriptures also. Though there are many versions of the Bible the internal message is not affected because of divine protection.

What happens when, amongst the sola people, a disagreement arises over what is meant in scripture, do you simple create a new ‘church’?

Unfortunately, sadly that is what many people do (create their own church). But proper unbiased study of the scripture would eliminate disagreement. I do not agree by such behavior.

arcura

Feb 26, 2010, 01:11 AM

inhisservice,
Scripture not only tells us how The Church was established it also tells that The Church is the pillar and foundation of The T.
Truth.
Therefore it is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that interprets holy Scripture correctly.
It was The Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and the Catholic Church to promulgate that Scripture into the Holy Bible which the world can use.
Not only does Scripture tells who has the authority so does authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 26, 2010, 07:56 AM

inhisservice,
Scripture not only tells us how The Church was established it also tells that The Church is the pillar and foundation of The T.
truth.
Therefore it is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that interprets holy Scripture correctly.
It was The Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and the Catholic Church to promulgate that Scripture into the Holy Bible which the world can use.
Not only does Scripture tells who has the authority so does authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, again if you are going to make such claims, back them up with scripture! Otherwise you claims become irrelevant.

JoeT777

Feb 26, 2010, 11:03 AM

Fred, again if you are going to make such claims, back them up with scripture! Otherwise you claims become irrelevant.

1 Timothy 3:15
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

House of God = Church

Church = Church

Living God = God

pillar = Church

Ground of Truth = Foundation = Peter = Church = Catholic

JoeT

450donn

Feb 26, 2010, 11:26 AM

JoeT777

Feb 26, 2010, 02:51 PM

Joe, since you choose to jump in and answer for Fred then please answer why Fred says this.
"Therefore it is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that interprets holy Scripture correctly." By this sort of statement you are stating flatly that all other forms of Christianity are not following the teachings in the Bible and therefore are not Christian.
There is NO reference to the RCC anywhere in scriptures. This is some notion that appears is being ingrained into followers of the pope. And I still cannot figure out where it comes from. Except maybe from some teachings NOT found in the bible.

I thought the difference between bloging and a forum was that in blog you make statements, controlling the length, content and theme. In a forum only the theme is controlled and, not withstanding etiquette, one is free to 'jump' in at any point, i.e. interact. I answered so that you would have the correct information; I can, if you wish, refrain from doing so.

The Church holds that you can interpret most all of scripture in any form so long as it is contextual, represents the intent of the writer and 'harmonizes' with all other Scripture, Tradition, councils, and Papal decrees. And, it assents to the Magisterial teachings. There are only 7 verses that I'm aware of that are 'doctrinally' defined. The notion going around is found in non-Catholics who think the Church 'brainwashes,' ingrains, or wise dictates what each verse means – the Church doesn't. Had it ever occurred to you that you get somewhat the same scriptural sense from all Catholics, because they are correct?

JoeT

arcura

Feb 26, 2010, 03:20 PM

450donn,
Joe has done a good job explaining and Scripture with providing.
I also did that some what in regard to The Church's authority to correctly interpret Scripture when I mentioned the bible say that The Church IS the pillar ans foundation of the truth. However I did not mention where in the bible that was as Joe did.
Being the pillar and foundation of the truth clearly indicates the Church can and does interpret Holt Scripture correctly, therefore the truth.
Joe explained how that was done, in context to all of scripture not selected bits and pieces as many others do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 26, 2010, 04:22 PM

So AGAIN you are claiming that the RCC is the only church and the rest of are heathens? Is that what I am hearing from you?
Therefore it is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that interprets holy Scripture correctly.
It was The Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and the Catholic Church to promulgate that Scripture into the Holy Bible which the world can use.

I am really insulted by these sorts of comments.

450donn

Feb 26, 2010, 04:47 PM

Had it ever occurred to you that you get somewhat the same scriptural sense from all Catholics, because they are correct?

JoeT

No, it more occurs to me that you are getting the party line directly from one man.
Sorry, some of the stuff you are coming up with sounds more like you are a brainwashed member of a cult that a member of a church that is preaching/teaching the whole truth as found in the word of God!

JoeT777

Feb 26, 2010, 04:54 PM

So AGAIN you are claiming that the RCC is the only church and the rest of are heathens? Is that what I am hearing from you?

I never used the word heatherns or for that mater a dirogitory term. I don't claim the RCC is the only Church. She is the only Divinely constituted Church of Jesus Christ.

Therefore it is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church that interprets holy Scripture correctly.
It was The Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and the Catholic Church to promulgate that Scripture into the Holy Bible which the world can use.

And I got slammed for calling you brain washed!

This was a statement by Fred. In her doctrine, writings, and teachings the Roman Catholic Church is correct in her understanding of Scripture. Her Tradition produced Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and she protected Scripture from error for 2,000 years. Yes, Fred was correct.

If this answer doesn't please you, then just continue thinking I'm brainwashed, doesn't make me any difference. I've made it my business to know.

JoeT.

JoeT777

Feb 26, 2010, 05:03 PM

No, it more occurs to me that you are getting the party line directly from one man.
Sorry, some of the stuff you are coming up with sounds more like you are a brainwashed member of a cult that a member of a church that is preaching/teaching the whole truth as found in the word of God!

That's the point, the Catholic Church is teaching the revealed truth found in Scripture.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 26, 2010, 05:23 PM

450donn,
No, I did not say that or infer that others are heathens.
I am upset that you says so or think so.
All who are friends of Jesus are friends of mine.
That is the way I think and feel.
Christians in other denominations are brothers and sisters to me if they truly love anf follow Jesus as best they can and know how.
Millions of Christians are brought up outside the Catholic Church and really know no other than the one they were brought up in. They know or understand no other.
I am not a person who bashes or viciously puts down other denominations or the members thereof, as some folks do do.
That is a waste of time and love.
Some of my best friends and loved ones are members of other denominations and I do not think less of them for that or of or for you.
I hope you have learned to understand the Catholic Church better as has been presented here for we Catholics here are sincere.
I think that it is good that we understand each other. That way we can better get along well.
Having been a member and leader in a Protestant denomination fro many years helps me understand others point of view.
Frankly I still love to denomination I left for It brought me to Jesus and treated me well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Feb 26, 2010, 05:31 PM

JoeT777

Ground of Truth = Foundation = Peter = Church = Catholic

As I have already told you and as scripture quite plainly states foundation is NOT Peter but Jesus Christ.

1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said that He would build His church on a rock He was not just randomly using a metaphor. He was using a metaphor which was quite familiar to everyone who has heard the scripture being read in the synagogues. It was a common metaphor and everyone knew what it meant.
Here a few of the numerous verses of the OT that speaks of the Rock.

2Sa 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?
Psa 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;
Psa 28:1 A Psalm of David. Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock;
Psa 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.
Psa 92:15 To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

Paul made it clear to us who the rock was.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The scripture is clear that the rock is Jesus Christ. It is also clear that Jesus said to Peter "You are a small piece of a larger rock". You once said Jesus spoke Aramaic. So He did. But when He spoke Peter He just used a Greek word.

Let me also bring this verse to your mind.

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

The "modus operandi" of Jesus is not such that an authority exists as a leader among men. No one is supposed to exercise authority. He alone is our authority. This is the same reason why God did not give Israel a king. "The greatest among you must be the servant." The RC goes exactly opposite to this doctrine.

Therefore the only way you can establish that Peter was made the leader of the Church is either by rejecting the scripture or by twisting it.

450donn

Feb 26, 2010, 05:47 PM

But Fred, this is not the first time you and/or JoeT777 have made these sorts of claims or accusations. What am I suppose to think when you keep repeating this mantra and Joe follows along and keeps repeating this same party line?

arcura

Feb 26, 2010, 06:40 PM

inhisservice,
Sorry, that is not correct.
If you read the passages correctly Jesus was talking directly to and about Peter AND Jesus gave him the power to hold or lose things here which would be made so in heaven
Note closely that Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven which made Peter His prime minister on this planet.
Also...
Thus both Jesus and Peter are referred to Rock
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Feb 26, 2010, 09:20 PM

NOW you are trying to say Peter is the same as Jesus? How ridiculous!
MY God have you totally gone off the deep end.
Now I really know the truth Fred!

arcura

Feb 26, 2010, 10:26 PM

450donn,
No I am Not!!
I said that they both have been referred to as a rock.
That IS recorded in Scripture or I would not have mentioned it.
Matth 7:24 First it was Peter as a rock, later in Corinthians it was Jesus. It was Paul who did so as a spiritual Rock. By then Jesus had died and gone to heaven.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)
There are many things in the bible referred to as a rock.
Check it out if you don't believe me.
I stick with Holy Scripture for my truths.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 26, 2010, 11:06 PM

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The scripture is clear that the rock is Jesus Christ. It is also clear that Jesus said to Peter "You are a small piece of a larger rock". You once said Jesus spoke Aramaic. So He did. But when He spoke Peter He just used a Greek word.

AS I speak, I can change metaphors from time to time; it’s quite common, sometimes all within the same sentence. There no difference between Peter the Foundation and Christ the foundation.

Yes Christ is the Rock. He is also the founder; but more important to Paul a more important metaphoric image of spiritual rock. Obviously missed was my post concerning Peter the Boulder, Rock, stone, or pebble. But, here the metaphors are too important to miss.

“For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud: and all passed through the sea. And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food: And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)”

The Jews walked out of Egypt under the smoke of the pillar of fire, through the parted sea. They ate manna from heaven that saved the body but, “your fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead.” (John 6:49). They drank from a rock from which water flowed. You may remember the miracle in the desert, Moses was commanded to “strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink.” (Exodus 17:6). Paul brings this to vividly to mind, but then he adds, “And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them” linking it to “and the Rock was Christ.” The spiritual drink that gushed out was the blood of Christ, and the manna the body of Christ; a metaphoric connection the Real Presence of Christ, i.e. the Eucharist. The reference to water and Moses is a direct allegorical connection to baptism. Paul makes no bones of it; he places meat on the Table; a holy Altar where life sustaining flesh is served, the Lamb of God.

To Paul’s Jewish audience, this message is the same vivid one Christ gave the Pharisees on Passover. The manna their father ate didn’t bring eternal life, but there was “new bread which comes from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.“ A bread that sustains life forever. (Cf. John 6:47 seqq.)

JoeT

arcura

Feb 26, 2010, 11:47 PM

inhisservice,
Joe did good job explaining that for you.
But keep in mind the Paul was writing that after Jesus had died and gone to heaven.
And clearly he was speaking to the Jews who knew of the rock from which water came in Moses' time.
Jesus was the spiritual water which now flood to them that followed Jesus.
BUT Peter is the Rock on which the Church was built.
In its way it is also a spiritual rock for The Church id the abode of the Holy Spirit which guides and inspires it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 27, 2010, 03:53 AM

Catholic[/B]

JoeT

The disagreement seems to be over the above, i.e. transitive sequence of events.What we you are examining is whether something is equal to something else, e.g.. Ground of truth=Peter, Foundation=Church or any other possible combination.

Such a sequence leads to an infinite regress because:

(1) There are justified beliefs.

(2) Every justified belief is justified by inferring it from some justified belief or beliefs.

(3) No justified belief justifies itself.

(4) Belief x justifies a belief in y and y justified a belief in z and so on.

In order to make the sequence finite we can say that Z is the conclusion. As in the above case where Catholic is the conclusion. This however results in the sequence being circular.This is because one of the justifications could not be known to be true unless the conclusion was assumed to be true.

Tut

arcura

Feb 27, 2010, 10:21 AM

TUT317

Feb 27, 2010, 11:51 AM

TUT317,
I go by what the bible clearly says about Jesus appointing Peter to be the first Leader of The Church.
To me the Holy Bible is the truth of God's Word and it says that The Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth on earth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello Fred,

I have absolutely no problem with that.

I see the problem being in the way the relationships have been expressed in a transitive format.

Regards

Tut

arcura

Feb 27, 2010, 03:14 PM

TUT317,
I do not understand what you mean by the word transitive.
Please help me understand it.
I have never used that word.
Fred

TUT317

Feb 27, 2010, 03:24 PM

TUT317,
I do not understand what you mean by the word transitive.
Please help me understand it.
I have never used that word.
Fred

Hi Fred,

It is a bit like this:

Helen is the mother of Alice, Alice is the mother of Jill, Jill is the mother of Jan and so on.

For example, Helen and Jan are related, but we cannot say that Helen=Jan. A lot depends on the way we use is/equals.

I hope this helps.

Regards

Tut

arcura

Feb 27, 2010, 03:54 PM

TUT317,
Thanks.
That works for me.
Now how does it apply to how we have been dealing with this topic?
Fred

TUT317

Feb 27, 2010, 06:49 PM

Hi again Fred,

For a relation to be equally transitive it must be of the following type:

a=b and b=c, then a=c

This works well in mathematics but becomes problematic when dealing with factual examples in language.

If you consider the example I gave you earlier, Helen can never equal Jan. Even though they are related they are two distinct entities. Strictly speaking the example is intransitive.

Intransitive relationships are of the type, ab and
because always implies NOT ac.

(This is different again to non-transitive relationships. It will not be necessary to go into this).

Consider the example mentioned a few times in the discussion.

Ground of truth=Foundation=Peter=Church=Catholic

Basically what I am claiming is that the above is of the intransitive type.
In other words , it is of the type, not equal.

Regards

Tut

arcura

Feb 27, 2010, 07:27 PM

TUT317,
Ah, now I see what you are getting at.
But your "Ground of truth=Foundation=Peter=Church=Catholic" should be with the Ground of truth last as well as first.
Why, because Jesus is the spiritual Ground of truth who founded the Church and as the bible says it also is the pillar and ground of truth.
But also what we have here is a progress of accomplishment
Jesus, Truth, Foundation, Peter, Church, Catholic, Ground of truth.
What's missing is the ties... or word ties... as follows...
Jesus is Truth, He Foundation, with Peter as leader, The Church which is Catholic, which is Ground of truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 27, 2010, 08:27 PM

TUT317,
Ah, now I see what you are getting at.
But your "Ground of truth=Foundation=Peter=Church=Catholic" should be with the Ground of truth last as well as first.
Why, because Jesus is the spiritual Ground of truth who founded the Church and as the bible says it also is the pillar and ground of truth.
But also what we have here is a progress of accomplishment
Jesus, Truth, Foundation, Peter, Church, Catholic, Ground of truth.
What's missing is the ties...or word ties...as follows...
Jesus is Truth, He Foundation, with Peter as leader, The Church which is Catholic, which is Ground of truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred:

Excellent response! Not to mention perfect logic! Tut needs to get up a lot earlier to get one on you.

Ground of truth=Foundation=Peter=Church=Catholic

The perfect circle of life

Ground of truth=Foundation=Peter=Church=Catholic=Ground of truth

JoeT

arcura

Feb 27, 2010, 08:38 PM

JoeT,
Thanks much.
Pax Christi,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 27, 2010, 11:40 PM

He Fred,

Well done Fred. You people might be able to get back to your discussion without me interfering.

Tut

arcura

Feb 27, 2010, 11:55 PM

Thanks TUT,
Have a great gentle day.
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 28, 2010, 08:02 PM

God's Kingdom

By ignoring the biggest part of Scripture I suppose one could say, “The ‘modus operandi’ of Jesus is not such that an authority exists as a leader among men. No one is supposed to exercise authority. He alone is our authority.” But, what we actually read in scripture is God jealously watching over his Kingdom.

More importantly we can trace God’s promises of starting, maintaining, and building up, a ‘kingdom,’ the very same “Kingdom of God” spoke of in the Gospels. You might say that God allows mankind to participate in His Nation building. It is true that God is the sole authority. Still, why do you suspect he would roll-up His authority and put it in a book to doing His Authority an injustice? Peter was never rejected as the person on which Christ built his Church; that is until about 1520 A.D. In rejecting Peter, what we are asked to do by some is reject the Catholic Church; if the reason isn’t obvious I’ll explain sometime. In so doing, perhaps unintentionally, it rejects God’s Kingdom, the promise made to Abraham, Moses, and David. Rejecting Peter unravels God’s plan for His house. Many fail to see how to remove this one pillar of the Church it brings down the entire house.

The Kingdom of God is a promise to all Father Abraham’s children. It’s a nation with in possession of lands. All the children inherit in her and are bound to her:

And Abram added: But to me you have not given seed: and lo my servant born in my house, shall be my heir… Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. And he said to him: I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land, and that you might possess it… And it was said unto him: Know beforehand that your seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage, … That day God made a covenant with Abram, saying: To your seed will I give this land, from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates. (Genesis 15:3-18)

God carves out a ‘piece of the rock’ for His people. Then from them he builds up a nation of priest. A nation of priests is nothing more than a ‘Church’ as a Catholic would think of it; priests ruled, the people, priests administered justice, priests made the sacrifices mandated by God.

God gave Moses a Kingdom, a nation of priests; “And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:6)

Then, like other kingdoms in the world the people clamored for a King to rule them and administer justice. God heard their prayers and David was brought up from a nation of shepherds. God promised to David for his piety was rewarded with the Kingship with which to build up His house; a kingdom forever. But, Solomon fell prey to the same error the Pharisees made; he thought he could get around a jealous God, just wash the dishes, keep kosher and God would never notice he was building temples to pagan gods. Consequently, the kingdom was divided; which by the way foreshadowed what would happen to the Sadducees and Pharisees. The Power of Moses seat would be shifted from the Jewish kingdom of God to the Christ’s Kingdom of God.

The Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because you have done this, and have not kept my covenant, and my precepts, which I have commanded you, I will divide and rend your kingdom, and will give it to your servant. (1 Kings 11:11)

As promised the prince and the high priest of Israel were conjoined. The nation of priests Moses was promised, now a Kingdom of God.

And David perceived that the Lord had confirmed him king over Israel, and that his kingdom was exalted over his people Israel. (1 Chronicles 14:2)

Yet another promise is made by God:

For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. 7 His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

The Old Testament tells of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messianic age. The Kingdom is meant for the sanctification of the twelve tribes as well as the Gentiles. Even kings serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). It’s clear that a Catholic (universal) faith and common worship is implied, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:1-2) A unified worship, One worship under a teaching authority, keeping the Divine Truth for all; “And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them to the east sea, and half of them to the last sea: they shall be in summer and in winter. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one. “(Zechariah 14:8)

Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq. We see that authority in the shepherd that leads his sheep between in the pastures of Divine Truth (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24-28).

Taking the seat of Moses, Christ is the High Priest of the Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The priesthood in this Messianic Kingdom is a continuation of the priesthood in the Old Testament with continued sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20)

To be Continued

JoeT

JoeT777

Feb 28, 2010, 08:03 PM

Continued:

Peter Takes his Seat

The importance of “God's Kingdom” is that it is a direct connection with the Divine by which we are “ruled” in our faith and love of God. The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the infallible rule and measure of faith. Thereby, the only legitimate interpreter of Holy Scripture found in apostolic tradition. All of which brings us to Peter, because he is the First among equal given a ministry to build a New Covenant Church our of the Old Covenant Church.

Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

In Isaiah 22:22 we see key of the House of David relate to the keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Judah. A great Temple was built in David's Jerusalem; by comparison this would have made the founder and Eliacim the foundation. Sobna is an inutile scribe (I would suggest he would be a lawyer today) who is the High Priest. We see that Sobana has carved out a place in the temple for himself as did the Pharisees and Sadducees; as it were priests that have become leavened (Cf. Matt 16:1-4). According to the prophesy Sobna, can be likened to the lawyerly people we see in the New Testament who are “carried away, as a cock”; by the neck. Furthermore, this people are left to die by the chariot which from our perspective in time can be easily related to the raising of the Temple in 70 A.D.

Equally important figure is that Helcias is the High Priest (the father of Eliacim) that repaired the Temple and in so doing found the books of the Torah (Books of the Law). Thus Eliacim, the son of Helcias, figured in Matt 16 who later is to say, “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill”, (Matt 5:17). As Helcias brought the law, hidden by corrupt priests. Christ fulfilled the law and the prophecies.

Eliacim is cut down; but the prophecies don't stop there, we see in Jeremiah 33: 17-18 that the Church will never be cut off from David. The chair of Peter will always be occupied as the Popes inherit the throne. And too, The Kingdom will be in the Church which will have no end; its priests will be the Shewbread feeding and nurturing. So the Apostles know to trust in the prophecy of Isaiah 61:5 And strangers shall stand and shall feed your flocks: and the sons of strangers shall be your husbandman, and the dressers of your vines. 6 But you shall be called the priests of the Lord: to you it shall be said: Ye ministers of our God: you shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and you shall pride yourselves in their glory.

After the vignette of the transfer of authority seen in Matt 16 we see Christ instructing Peter in Luke 12: 39-44 and Matt 24: 42-47. In a sense we hear Christ warning Peter, and his successors, as it were, not to fall asleep at the wheel. The others were there, but the instruction was for the Office of Peter. And of course we see Peter exerting his authority in Acts 15:7-16.

So we can certainly conclude that the key to the succession of Peter's primacy is in the books of the Prophets. These are books we would expect the Jews of Peter's day to have set to memory. Any reference related to them would have been recognized by the listeners. Peter, as well as the remaining Apostles would have immediately picked up on any parallel. In fact, the Gospels are written more so to the Jew of the first century then to our time. Consequently, much of the meaning is lost in antiquity.

It's painful sometimes to point out the embarrassing obvious. But, those who have separated themselves from the RCC must attack Peter's office first among all the differences or grievances. The reason is obvious. The claim of having Peter's chair would require conformity with the Church. But, if the Church existed as it did in Christ's time, existed for 1,000 years, existed for 1,500 years,existed for 2,000 years and is promised by God to be His Kingdom to the end of times; how then do you now claim issue with Peter's Chair? If we pull down Peter, we pull down Christ, David, Moses, etc.

JoeT

inhisservice

Feb 28, 2010, 09:16 PM

Arcura

If you read the passages correctly Jesus was talking directly to and about Peter AND Jesus gave him the power to hold or lose things here which would be made so in heaven

As I had said before it Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ called Simon "petros". His name is "PETROS" and Peter is the Anglicized version of that word. That word means a small piece of a rock. It could be translated a "splinter". So Peter is not The Rock as the Scripture shows us.

Now to the keys.

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.

Note that several assumptions are made with this one verse to mean that Jesus Christ gave authority to Peter.

1. It is assumed that Jesus gave only Peter the keys. This verse mentions that Jesus Christ gives keys to Peter. But it does not say that the keys were given only to Peter.

2. It is also assumed that those keys are some singular object. Why could there be no other keys that what Jesus Christ gave to Peter?

Most importantly most of those who bank on this verse (if I might say so) have not understood what the keys are? I would like to leave that to you to explain.

Please tell us what those keys are that Jesus Christ gave to Peter.

There are many things in the bible referred to as a rock.
Check it out if you don't believe me.

The Bible is not inconsistent with it's allegory. Check the Old Testament and you would find that "The Rock" always pointed to God.

inhisservice

Feb 28, 2010, 09:54 PM

AS I speak, I can change metaphors from time to time; it’s quite common, sometimes all within the same sentence. There no difference between Peter the Foundation and Christ the foundation.

The Bible does not change metaphors. The Bible is consistent at that because the Holy Spirit is present when the writers were doing their work. If the rock meant the Lord it would never be used to meaning something else. You can find this when you study the Bible.

But keep in mind the Paul was writing that after Jesus had died and gone to heaven.
And clearly he was speaking to the Jews who knew of the rock from which water came in Moses' time.

I agree that Paul was speaking to the Jews who knew the meaning of the rock and I would like tell that Jesus Christ was also doing the same thing when He was speaking to Peter for Peter was a Jew. Peter and all the others knew who "The Rock" pointed to in the OT. They understood what He was speaking and its only we who have misunderstood. And let me repeat Jesus never called Peter "rock".

arcura

Feb 28, 2010, 10:49 PM

inhisservice

Mar 1, 2010, 12:26 AM

JoeT777

Still, why do you suspect he would roll-up His authority and put it in a book to doing His Authority an injustice?

God is the authority. His words have authority. His words (not all of His words) were recorded in a book for all generations to know Him and His Authority.

Peter was never rejected as the person on which Christ built his Church; that is until about 1520 A.D. In rejecting Peter, what we are asked to do by some is reject the Catholic Church; if the reason isn’t obvious I’ll explain sometime. In so doing, perhaps unintentionally, it rejects God’s Kingdom, the promise made to Abraham, Moses, and David. Rejecting Peter unravels God’s plan for His house. Many fail to see how to remove this one pillar of the Church it brings down the entire house.

It is important to note that Peter was not claimed to be the first Bishop of Rome only in the middle of 4th century AD. Before this that idea was not in existence. In the days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ the Apostles went around the world preaching and establishing Churches. Scripture tells us that Paul had established Churches Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica etc. It is also recognized that Paul is the person who established the Church in Rome. This is also clear from his epistle to the Roman Church. That being the reality suddenly in the middle of 4th century Peter is declared as the first Bishop of Rome with no evidence to backup that claim.

Next it historically obvious that the Roman Catholic church prevented the Bible from reaching people and they even persecuted and tortured those who possessed a copy of the Bible or those who tried to translate it. The reason is obvious. The Bible exposed that the RC claims were false and they only way they could keep themselves from being exposed is to suppress the Bible. They kept the people in the dark. You are right in saying that Peter was not rejected until 1520 AD. It was in the middle of 15th century that the printing press was invented and the Bible got out and was printed. By the beginning of the 16th century those who read the Bible realized the truth and that is when Peter was reject as the leader of the Church.

Then from them he builds up a nation of priest. A nation of priests is nothing more than a ‘Church’ as a Catholic would think of it; priests ruled, the people, priests administered justice, priests made the sacrifices mandated by God.

A "nation of priests" means just that - a nation where everyone are priests. A twisting of the scripture is required here. Another point to note is that in the dividing God makes each office and their duty clear. The priest is never given the office of a ruler. There is only one man mentioned in the entire Bible who is both a priest and a ruler and that is Melchisedec. Therefore pries don't rule.

Moreover we in the New Testament contrary to the RC faith do not require a priests. We just have one high priest.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

The office of priests does this:

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Since we have once priest who who done this once for all :

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

We do not require priests.

It’s clear that a Catholic (universal) faith and common worship is implied, “And it shall come to pass in the last days,

Well I agree with the preaching up to this point (though I do not understand why you are preaching to me) but here is a point I differ with. If you are using the word "Catholic" to mean "unified" then its fine. But it cannot mean the RC because as RC is a separate denomination that tried to rule all others.

The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the infallible rule and measure of faith. Thereby, the only legitimate interpreter of Holy Scripture found in apostolic tradition. All of which brings us to Peter, because he is the First among equal given a ministry to build a New Covenant Church our of the Old Covenant Church.

Now that is called "circular reasoning". Lets see the logic.
RC is authentic -> RC holds that scripture and tradition must be in harmony -> tradition says Peter is the leader -> therefore the scripture also must also mean that Peter is the leader -> therefore Peter is the leader -> therefore RC is authentic.

Jesus Christ says tradition should not mix with scripture.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

we see in Jeremiah 33: 17-18 that the Church will never be cut off from David. The chair of Peter will always be occupied as the Popes inherit the throne.

The question is weather the Church is the chair of Peter. You are not addressing that but just carrying on a long preaching assuming that that is true.

After the vignette of the transfer of authority seen in Matt 16

Which is what you assume it to mean...

we see Christ instructing Peter in Luke 12: 39-44 and Matt 24: 42-47. In a sense we hear Christ warning Peter, and his successors,

The instruction was not only for them but for all. Please note the parallel in Mark.

Mar 13:37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

So we can certainly conclude that the key to the succession of Peter’s primacy is in the books of the Prophets.

I regret to tell you that you have not showed anything in support of the RC claim. Obviously the whole Bible has prophesy about the "Church" and salvation plan of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would like to tell you once and for all that I do agree with all the prophesies about the Church. But is that Church the RC? If you quote all the prophesies about the Church and out of the blue add a sentence that that Church is the RC or Peter's seat you have not really said anything .

450donn

Mar 1, 2010, 08:55 AM

JoeT,
It is interesting that the old useless argument about rocks and pebbles is brought up again now long after it has been clearly shown to be and empty one and in face of all you have posted regarding the building of the Kingdom of God on earth, The Church.
Some my not understand what being a "priest unto the order of Melchisedech" is. That ancient priest served bread and wine as to do today's priest who consecrate it into the body and blood of Jesus Christ as He so instructed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred only in your mind has the comments about the true meaning of "rock" is an old discussion. It is the crux of your churches faith and belief is it not? It was pointed out to you more than once what the true meaning in any language you chose to take about was. IT does NOT mean foundation stone like you insist on claiming. But rather more like a pebble, or small stone. In my reading today I read the story in Mark 10 starting in vs28. But the real crux of the issue is in vs31. But many who are first will be last, and the last first. Peter always throughout scripture wanted to be first, to be the leader, the most important of the disciples. So reading scripture he actually became the least. So are you basing your religious beliefs on the least of the 12?

Interesting that you bring up Melchizedek, as Melchizedek means King of righteousness. He served as the human priest/king of Salem, and provided a picture of Christs priesthood. The reference in Genesis 14:20 the people brought a tenth (the tithe) to him and he blessed them.

JoeT777

Mar 1, 2010, 09:16 AM

JoeT777God is the authority. His words have authority. His words (not all of His words) were recorded in a book for all generations to know Him and His Authority.

It is important to note that Peter was not claimed to be the first Bishop of Rome only in the middle of 4th century AD. Before this that idea was not in existence. In the days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ the Apostles went around the world preaching and establishing Churches. Scripture tells us that Paul had established Churches Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica etc. It is also recognized that Paul is the person who established the Church in Rome. This is also clear from his epistle to the Roman Church. That being the reality suddenly in the middle of 4th century Peter is declared as the first Bishop of Rome with no evidence to backup that claim.

Next it historically obvious that the Roman Catholic church prevented the Bible from reaching people and they even persecuted and tortured those who possessed a copy of the Bible or those who tried to translate it. The reason is obvious. The Bible exposed that the RC claims were false and they only way they could keep themselves from being exposed is to suppress the Bible. They kept the people in the dark. You are right in saying that Peter was not rejected until 1520 AD. It was in the middle of 15th century that the printing press was invented and the Bible got out and was printed. By the beginning of the 16th century those who read the Bible realized the truth and that is when Peter was reject as the leader of the Church.

Good, I'm glad you've got it all figured out the way you want it. I won't bother to show a short list of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century writers, Popes, saints, doctors, and fathers who thought otherwise. It might upset historical constructs necessary to correct solo Scriptura in one's own image, i.e. 'my rule of faith'.

A "nation of priests" means just that - a nation where everyone are priests. A twisting of the scripture is required here. Another point to note is that in the dividing God makes each office and their duty clear. The priest is never given the office of a ruler. There is only one man mentioned in the entire Bible who is both a priest and a ruler and that is Melchisedec. Therefore pries don't rule.

Ok, this must be another one of those constructs. How would you explain the tribe of Levi who was chosen by the house of Aaron to exclusively perform all the religious functions? Did Christ terminate the Old Kingdom of God, that is, the Old Covenant? Or, does scripture show that this was given to the gentile, a new tenant?

Moreover we in the New Testament contrary to the RC faith do not require a priests. We just have one high priest.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

The office of priests does this:

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Since we have once priest who who done this once for all :

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

We do not require priests.

Then Christ didn't know what he was talking about when he told the cleansed leper, “See that you tell no man: but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. (Cf. Matt 8:4)

Who continues the commemoration of the sacrifice required every day? (Cf. John 6, Luke 22:26 Mark 14:22-25). But, what do I know, just because it's in scripture that doesn't make it solo Scriptura-ish, that is unless I put my non-existent tradition on it – then I can make it a rule of my making. But, what do I know?

Well I agree with the preaching up to this point (though I do not understand why you are preaching to me) but here is a point I differ with. If you are using the word "Catholic" to mean "unified" then its fine. But it cannot mean the RC because as RC is a separate denomination that tried to rule all others.

On the contrary, I'm 'truth-ing' to you. This is your thread, I'm simply responding to the question with God's Truth, supported by scripture. If you can't believe Scriptrue alone, what can you believe, traditions of men?

Now that is called "circular reasoning". Lets see the logic.
RC is authentic -> RC holds that scripture and tradition must be in harmony -> tradition says Peter is the leader -> therefore the scripture also must also mean that Peter is the leader -> therefore Peter is the leader -> therefore RC is authentic.

Jesus Christ says tradition should not mix with scripture.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I'd suggest that we are 'holding fast to the tradition given us' by Christ. “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.” (2 thess 3:6) Now if we don't walk in accord with the tradition given us aren't we charged with an error? Or are these just pesky little verses that oughtn't be in the bible – that's what Luther thought . So much for sola Scriptura right? Maybe we should re-name it sola 'myScriptura,' my 'rule of faith'. What Christ warned against was making void “the traditions of the ancients;” these are the traditions of men. (Cf. Mark 7) Where does it say "tradition should not mix with scripture". What the New Teastament speaks to is 'traditions of men,' these are the 'bad' traditions.

I regret to tell you that you have not showed anything in support of the RC claim. Obviously the whole Bible has prophesy about the "Church" and salvation plan of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would like to tell you once and for all that I do agree with all the prophesies about the Church. But is that Church the RC? If you quote all the prophesies about the Church and out of the blue add a sentence that that Church is the RC or Peter's seat you have not really said anything.

No regrets here.

If I can spout off all the prophecies I want and it won't make any difference to you - then maybe we need to get another term for solo Scriptura (Bible alone) - how about mono-Bible? Or my-Bible-only? Or my-solitary-Scriptura?

JoeT

JoeT777

Mar 1, 2010, 09:35 AM

JoeT,
It is interesting that the old useless argument about rocks and pebbles is brought up again now long after it has been clearly shown to be and empty one and in face of all you have posted regarding the building of the Kingdom of God on earth, The Church.
Some my not understand what being a "priest unto the order of Melchisedech" is. That ancient priest served bread and wine as to do today's priest who consecrate it into the body and blood of Jesus Christ as He so instructed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Your age or your wisdom is showing through once again - it's because some argue their tradition, not solo Scriptura, a tradition they claim to be “solo Scriptura”. But, of course it’s not. Sticking to the meaning of scripture is a winner every time – but then some would object when it brought them to Catholic Tradition. The funny part is, understanding Scripture isn’t that hard, every meaning conveyed harmonizes Tradition and the remaining Scripture – but of course, again, that would mean understanding ‘Catholic’. So, once again we come to see it’s not really scripture they dislike or hate; it’s what they THINK the Catholic Church stands for.

So, once again you’ve proven the only way to have ‘solo Scriptura’ is for Scripture to harmonize with the Magisterium of Catholic Church.

JoeT

arcura

Mar 1, 2010, 02:33 PM

450donn,
Yes, being a Catholic I understand well about the priest "The King of Righteousness" who served bread and wine as do the Catholic priests.
About the it HAS been often shown here and in other threads that the idea about the pebble is in error.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic. There was no word for pebble in that language at that time if ever.
Sever people and things in the bible are referred to a "rock".
"Rock" is mentioned in the bible many, many times.
Both Jesus and Peter are referred to a rock, nothing else.
Jesus did not give the keys to heaven to a pebble (why would He?) but to a rock.
Please wake up and smell the coffee.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

450donn

Mar 1, 2010, 03:55 PM

Sorry Fred, I smelled the coffee just fine this morning. You are getting your information from one source is that right? Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, he also likely spoke two other languages and if you were to actually read the whole passage and not try taking things out of context you might understand that rock is NOT a cornerstone like you are trying to portray. What Jesus was saying there was likely not spoken in Aramaic, nor do you have any proof that it was, so you are trying to force something to fit your mold and not reading and understanding what was actually spoken or what he was teaching. The three common languages of the region in that day all use different words but basically petros, which IS translated as a pebble. Pebble and rock are interchangeable in their use today. What you are trying to allude to when you claim Peter as the foundation of your religion is that he is the cornerstone of your religion. There is no way that is even remotely close to petros or stone, pebble, rock.
Like I said earlier, in Mark
"But the real crux of the issue is in vs31. But many who are first will be last, and the last first. Peter always throughout scripture wanted to be first, to be the leader, the most important of the disciples. So reading scripture he actually became the least. So are you basing your religious beliefs on the least of the 12?"
So again are you basing your religion on the least of the disciples or Jesus Christ the one and only true God of heaven and earth?

Fr_Chuck

Mar 1, 2010, 05:36 PM

Guys, same things being said from 4 or 5 pages back

** you both are not going to agree on the meaning of the word, so move on knowing you will not change the others mind

arcura

Mar 1, 2010, 05:38 PM

450donn,
:)Sorry, I disagree again.:)
Peter is a rock but not a cornerstone.
Cornerstones are placed on a solid footing like a rock, bed rock.
I have read and re-read those passages many times.
As a Protestant I agreed with you until I re-read them with an open mind and I realized that Jesus was talking directly no and about Peter.
At one time I firmly believe that much about the Catholic church was wrong and I set out to prove that biblically, but after much study I realized that I was wrong.
Me, I. who would never become a Catholic eventually did so and mourned the people I had talked out of joining the Catholic Church.
God please forgive me.
Fred

arcura

Mar 1, 2010, 05:53 PM

Fr_Chuck,
I very much do agree with you so let's move on.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Mar 1, 2010, 08:26 PM

The Imposition of the Hands of the Priesthood

The center of Christendom is in an office, the priesthood. One Priest represents Christ here on earth, the Vicar of Christ. We see this priesthood reaching back to the seat of Moses a continuation of God's Kingdom from Old to New. Thus we see Primacy of Peter not only Christ centered but God centered.

The primary role, the very essence of priesthood is to perform sacrifice. A sacrifice we are invited to partake, the sacrifice rejected by non-Catholics. Aaron chose the tribe of Levi to act not as priests but as servants or assistants to priest. In a ceremony, at almost the same time, Aaron was anointed high-priest. (Cf. Exodus 29:1-37; 40:12 sqq.; Leviticus 8:1-36). In David's Tabernacle tradition has four different classes of Levites; servants of the priests, officials and judges, porters, and finally musicians and singers (1 Chronicles 23:3 sqq.). After the Babylonian exile the Levite priesthood died out. A new priesthood was established for the Herod's tradition of the Temple. Priests did the washing, cleaning of the temple, renewal of the proposition loaves, filling the oil-lamps and the menorah. Priests in the Herod's tradition offered the sacrifices each day. In 70 A.D. the sacrificial service performed by the priesthood ceased. What grew from this was a rabbinic system where rabbis no longer performed priestly sacrifices, but rather merely became teachers of the law.

In the Catholic teaching priests enjoy the fullness of ordination, primi ordinis. Deacon is an attendant to the priest with no priestly powers. This was foreshadowed by Melchisedech (cf. Genesis 14:18 sqq.) who offered bread and wine. The priesthood of Melchisedech was a prophetic reference to the Last Supper and the Mass where the bread and wine are sacrificed, changed into the 'Real Presence' of Christ.

Matthew 26:28: Touto gar estin to aima mou to tes [kaines] diathekes to peri pollon ekchynnomenon eis aphesin amartion. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:24: Touto estin to aima mou tes kaines diathekes to yper pollon ekchynnomenon. This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:20: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to yper ymon ekchynnomenon. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25: Touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo aimati. This chalice is the new testament in my blood.

The Sadducees mocked Christ, just as some mock the continuation of Perfect Proficiency of Christ's sacrifice, a holocaust for sin, consuming bite by bite each Eucharist as we receive the imperishable, just as they mock priests today. It's in joining Christ in His continual sacrifice offered daily in commemoration of his perfect sacrifice that is resented. (Cf. Heb 10:1-18) Like St. Augustine, we find that it's not us consuming Christ, but Christ consuming us; the Real Manna from Heaven. (Cf. St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 26 Tractate 26 on John 6:41-59)

The Council of Trent makes it clear that without priest the Church of Christ (For those in Rio Linda that's the Roman Catholic Church) wouldn't exist. "If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema." The reason should be obvious, it is the priest who offers the sacrifice, without the ordained priest we are without the Holy Eucharist, and without the Eucharist there is no Church. Christianity becomes story tellers with no Real Presence of Christ. “Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

The evidence is clear that the early Roman Catholic Church ordained priests taught by the original Twelve and their successors, “Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.” ( Acts 13:3) St. Luke's description of the ordination was simple, “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” ( Acts 14:22) And Paul tells Timothy not to “Neglect not the grace that is in thee [the authority to ordain priests], which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” (1 Tim 4:14) A special order of the simple presbyterii requiring the laying on of hands. A special authority, not taken on lightly, rather fulfillment of prophecy. And further, Paul advises not to “Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.” (1 Tim 5:22) And again, “For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands” (2 Timothy 1:6).

Consequently, not only is Peter leader of our Church, leader of all Christianity, but it's through his authority that we are graced with this special order of presbyterii. It was to Peter that it was first revealed that God walked among them. Yes he loved Christ. And if we too love God, then we must first seek out the Kingdom; and Peter was its first Vicar. But, to know this we first need to see how this Kingdom came to being through Peter and the other Eleven. We know that the Kingdom is a priestly Kingdom of God promised to Moses on Mount Sinai, “and you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (et vos eritis mihi in regnum sacerdotale, et gens sancta.) (Exodus 19:6). There cannot be two Kingdoms of God, thus we see in Matt 21:43 as it were, a changing of the guard from the chosen people of the twelve tribes to Christ's followers and the Twelve Apostles.

The Twelve were not simply priestly ministers of truth; the Twelve were not simply representatives of the 12 tribes. The Apostles were the “loaves of proposition” Unlike the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, these twelve were the only loaves that the Son of David, The Messiah, found within his temple. (Cf. 1 Sam 21:6). As you remember David went to the high priest Achimelech for bread. The only bread was the “proposition loaves.” These loves were unleavened, uncommon bread; the holy bread to be consumed (metaphoric vision of the real presence in the Eucharist - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist )

"Bread of the faces", i.e. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). 'ártoi tês prothéseos, "loaves of the setting forth" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression "loaves of proposition", as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have "shewbread" The loaves of bread spoken of here formed the most important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. (New Advent) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) has been set up. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. The loaves were in the presence of God, hence the name presence-bread.

“And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses”
Christ being the fulfillment of the Old Testament which we know requires each and everything done by Christ to be related to the temple as prophase requires. Holding this view we see the Twelve Apostles “in the presence of God;” the holiest of sacrifices in the temple; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times, i.e. separation of wheat and tars. Important is that the first time the tabernacle the Twelve loaves were in the presence of God, and when He held the bread Christ said at the last supper “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread”. The nourishment of the Twelve Loaves isto be consumed every time they preached the Kingdom of God; they nourish the masses with the body and blood of Christ and the knowledge of the Kingdom. Still further, at the end of their time, new freshly baked loaves were replaced, with new.

Standing before the tabernacle of the Kingdom of God, partaking of the “Real Presence” is our connection to the Devine, both in the Old and New Kingdom, it connects the Catholic with Father Abraham, Moses, David as well as a personal relationship with the crucified Christ. Christ is truly present in any sense you want to consider; being the sacrifice of both the Old Testament and the New. What is happening in Matthew 16 is THE MOST important sacrificial exposure of the bread (Apostles) to the Face of God. Only after Peter confessed was he exposed to the presence of God; who was Most Holy Sacrificial Lamb. Thus when Christ says, “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” the intent is crystal clear to 12 Jewish Apostles. Christ was God, Peter was to be the head of the Church – that same church, the same Kingdom, is what is called the Roman Catholic Church. Its authority is of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Deo Grátias; Thanks be to God.

arcura

Mar 1, 2010, 10:39 PM

JoeT,
Yes, that is clear and the 12 apostles represent the 12 tribes and the 12 loaves of bread.
That bread (unleavened) is still served today at every Catholic Mass along with wine made from the first squeezing of grapes.
A wonderful, marvelous, grace filled miracle takes place at every mass and the congregation gets to participate and partake thereof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Mar 1, 2010, 11:11 PM

For the cynic in all of us:

It just occurred to me; somebody mentioned that contrary to what a Catholic might think, we don’t need priests. Then what were the Apostles thinking! That Paul, you can’t teach that boy nuttin’. Paul would let Timothy run around the Mediterranean puttin’ hands on just about anybody. Paul finally had to write an e-mail to ol’ Timmy to knock it off: “Impose not hands lightly upon any man” (1 Tim 5:22, see also Acts 13:3, Acts 14:22, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6).

JoeT

BTW: thanks Fred.

arcura

Mar 1, 2010, 11:56 PM

JoeT,
Thanks YOU for the addition blurb about the necessity of having priests.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

HeadStrongBoy

Mar 2, 2010, 12:22 AM

Every church member believes that his is the only TRUE church.

inhisservice

Mar 2, 2010, 02:48 AM

JoeT777

Good, I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out the way you want it.

This sounds like I secretly posses an agenda based on which I have done my studies in a particular direction. Not so. I am an ordinary Christian who was a RC myself. Was it not true that the RC tortured people for who rejected their ways? Was it not true that they burnt people (who tried to translate the Bible) at stake? Has anyone studied to find out why such brutal punishment for an offence? This was not at all the example our Master showed us. If our Lord maintained peace when slapped on the face what gives the "Vicar of Christ" to punish? It is obvious they were trying keep something at bay.

Then Christ didn’t know what he was talking about when he told the cleansed leper, “See that you tell no man: but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. (Cf. Matt 8:4)

But our Lord knew. The New Testament begins when the Church came into the scene and that was after His resurrection. So while Jesus was alive it was the Age of the Law and that is why He ordered a person to follow the law. After Jesus had offered the perfect sacrifice for us we do not need another. Christ has done everything we need to be saved. Nothing more is left to be done.

It is finished: John 19:30

If sacrifices are not required the priests have no office any more.

... Now if we don’t walk in accord with the tradition given us aren’t we charged with an error? Or are these just pesky little verses that oughtn’t be in the bible – that’s what Luther thought . So much for sola Scriptura right? Maybe we should re-name it sola ‘myScriptura,’ my ‘rule of faith’. What Christ warned against was making void “the traditions of the ancients;” these are the traditions of men. (Cf. Mark 7) Where does it say "tradition should not mix with scripture". What the New Teastament speaks to is 'traditions of men,' these are the 'bad' traditions.

The tradition that the Apostles spoke of was the scripture based. Never did they deviate from the scripture. They had no tradition that was not scripturally supported and that is obvious from the scripture. But that is not the case with RC. Most of what they claim as tradition are not scriptural.

Arcura

Repeating a thing many times will not make it true. Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic I agree. There is no word for pebble in that language and I agree with that also. But what you don't see is that Jesus did not use an Aramaic word there. He used a Greek word "Petrose" there. That is why that word has been left untranslated in any language but has been left as is. Another example for similar behavior is "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" which is Hebrew and is left untranslated the author himself translating it for us. That is the same reason why we call the apostle "Peter" till today. If Jesus had not used a Greek word Peter would have been know by some other name.

I could say I read the Bible with an open mind and got away from RC.

inhisservice

Mar 2, 2010, 05:42 AM

The center of Christendom is in an office,

The center of Christianity is covenant of God and the mediator of that covenant. Moses was one of the mediators who worked on behalf of the King as was Abraham, Noah, etc. The focus is not on an office but on God and his covenant.

A sacrifice we are invited to partake, the sacrifice rejected by non-Catholics.

Non-Catholics do not reject the one and only sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ for our salvation. They only reject the daily sacrifices the RC priests offer indicating that the sacrifice Jesus Christ offered was not sufficient.

In the Catholic teaching priests enjoy the fullness of ordination, primi ordinis. Deacon is an attendant to the priest with no priestly powers. This was foreshadowed by Melchisedech (cf. Genesis 14:18 sqq.) who offered bread and wine.

How?

The priesthood of Melchisedech was a prophetic reference to the Last Supper and the Mass where the bread and wine are sacrificed, changed into the ‘Real Presence’ of Christ.

Melchisedech was reference to Jesus Christ as the scripture itself says. By the way where does it say that wine changes to the Blood of Christ?

It’s in joining Christ in His continual sacrifice offered daily in commemoration of his perfect sacrifice that is resented.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:10

The scripture says we are all sanctified by the sacrifice offered once for all. Do you mean to say that the scripture is wrong?

The reason should be obvious, it is the priest who offers the sacrifice, without the ordained priest we are without the Holy Eucharist, and without the Eucharist there is no Church. Christianity becomes story tellers with no Real Presence of Christ.

So what about the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit not the presence of Christ?

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-24

The Holy Spirit is given to everyone that believes in Jesus Christ and that is His prescience.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:...)John 7:39

The evidence is clear that the early Roman Catholic Church ordained priests taught by the original Twelve and their successors,

Why is the word successors used there? Or does it mean each one had their own successors?

“And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” ( Acts 14:22)

Priests? The word used in the original Greek is pres-boo'-ter-os and means "elders". That is how it has been translated in most of the Bible versions I have seen.

And Paul tells Timothy not to “Neglect not the grace that is in thee [the authority to ordain priests], which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” (1 Tim 4:14)

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Again except the Catholic Bible all other versions translates it as "presbytery" or "elders" and the word used in the original also means "elders".

We know that the Kingdom is a priestly Kingdom of God promised to Moses on Mount Sinai,

I have already explained that a priestly kingdom is not one in which a priest is the ruler rather one in which we are all supposed to be priests.

You my friend have spoken about the importance of 12 Apostles. I never disagreed that they were important elders of the Church in the first place. The point of difference here is weather Peter was appointed the leader of the 12. You have not provided any arguments in that direction. The next point is weather the Church of that day is the RC you have not provided any arguments to that either.

What you have is to prove a long essay on many arguments on the importance of the 12 elders and trying to present that the false theory that the center of Christianity is "priests". I would suggest you take a look at the question again to remind yourself of the point of discussion we are having.

Let me also remind you that during the point of discussion I had asked a number of questions to which no answer has yet been provide by you.

arcura

Mar 2, 2010, 01:19 PM

inhisservice,
You surprised me. I did not know that you "were" a RC.
You mentioned some of the bad news about the RC which if you knew history well you would know that much of it is distorted, exaggerated, of is not true.
You failed to mention what the protestant did and in some cases are still doing to Catholics.
It is far worse than ANYTHING The Church did.
Believe me, that is true.
Your admission of "having been" a Catholic and what you are saying now tells me something about you.
I firmly believe that ANYONE who understands the Catholic Church and its teaching well will NEVER leave That Church of Jesus Christ.
So it tells me that a best you were Catholic in name only.
But if you were confirmed a Catholic then you swore an oath to ALWAYS be a Catholic and to stand by it, explain it, teach it, and raise your children in it.
Were you confirmed?
Once a true Catholic ALWAYS a true Catholic.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred

JoeT777

Mar 2, 2010, 08:14 PM

It is Finished OR Next Year in Jerusalem!

It is finished: John 19:30
If sacrifices are not required the priests have no office any more.

Vacuus Corpus! What! The Messiah dies on the Cross and it is finished, as in 'all over'? The Messiah's Kingdom died on the Cross too? He packed his bags, waved, mañana, adiós amigo! He hops a freight train to heaven, leaving us standing around with our hands in our pockets, looking at a bear piece of wood with empty crossarms? And this, after saying he would be with us always? “And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matthew 28:20). It seems to me you've got a fickled Jesus. And at the consummation of the world, do you look for jesus to be just as fickled there too?

Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst. Now there was a vessel set there, full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar about hyssop, put it to his mouth. Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost. (John 19:28-30)

I know, I know, the King James say translates this verse “It is finished”. 'Consummated' compared with 'finished' implies much the same thing. However, in the case of the Douay-Rheims seems to give a better sense of the consummation of a ceremony; which is precisely what is happening in John 19:30. It's that part of the ceremony that is performed once all requisite requirements have been concluded. In this case, the most holy of ALL consummations, the necessary fulfillment of all, not some, but all prophecy for the Messiah to claim and establish his Kingdom on earth. “It is finished?” To begin it anew, the prerequisite must always be finished first. “It is finished?” in order for the New Testament to begin, the Old must terminate. Christ tells us He has “come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law;" and so he did, and IT WAS FINISHED. The Sacrificial Lamb paid for all sins, IT WAS FINISHED; but then there is Next Year in Jerusalem! The New Kingdom!

IT IS FISNISHED? Like Psalm 29 that is often considered a Psalm of David at the commemoration of his Temple in Jerusalem. This wasn't the end of the tabernacle, but the beginning. This wasn't the termination of David's Priestly role, but the beginning.

Psalm 29:

Bring to the Lord, O you children of God: bring to the Lord the offspring of rams. Bring to the Lord glory and honour: bring to the Lord glory to his name: adore the Lord in his holy court. The voice of the Lord is upon the waters; the God of majesty has thundered, The Lord is upon many waters. The voice of the Lord is in power; the voice of the Lord in magnificence. The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars: yea, the Lord shall break the cedars of Libanus. And shall reduce them to pieces, as a calf of Libanus, and as the beloved son of unicorns. The voice of the Lord divides the flame of fire: The voice of the Lord shakes the desert: and the Lord shall shake the desert of Cades. The voice of the Lord prepares the stags: and he will discover the thick woods: and in his temple all shall speak his glory. The Lord makes the flood to dwell: and the Lord shall sit king for ever. The Lord will give strength to his people: the Lord will bless his people with peace.

The Imagery, allegories, and symbols used by the Psalter are culturally different today nonetheless they reach across some 3,600 years, reaching over a dozen different languages into our culture today. A culture that couldn't even begin to fathom life in antiquity; at the same time vastly different; a culture having magicians that can fly, turn lead to gold, snatch the breathlessness from dead, yet dumb as snake oil. (Have you ever tried to sell oil to a snake? - End indeed!).

The befuddlement on Psalms 29 can be eased a bit with the help of St. Augustine. Sung by David at the completion of the tabernacle, it perfects the temple. The first and second verses tell of the strength of God's mediator in the war against evil and sing his praises. (We'll just take his word for it - I suppose 'ram' is to give the sense of strength to the 'children of God', i.e. the faithful.) These aren't mere platitudes; remember the auspicious occasion where this is being sung. It could easily be described as a Divine dedication ceremony. For David the dedication of the greatest Temple the Jewish nation had seen – it was completed it in perfection.

The completion of Christ's ministry is more perfect. The auscultation of Protestants when they hear Christ's last words 'it is finished,' is to hear the gurgle to mean that no more can be done, work is done, shut the doors, go home, you can't add more to perfection. GO, GO and sin, sin, all you need do is 'believe'. What happens then, according to the non-Catholic, is the Kingdom of God, faith and the Mystical Body of Christ starts and ends here, the sacrifice is complete, priestly prayers and dedication are rolled up on a Cross; go home – cover-it-up, put-it-away, it's- too-hard-to-look-at type of faith. Is that 'Catholic'?

I DON'T THINK SO!! Every English version of the bible except the Douay-Rheims Bible uses the word “finished” as Christ's last utterance hanging on the tree. (KJV: “It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost”- in part this could be simply forcing the argument in your favor). Nevertheless yes, the Temple was finished in the sense that all the construction work had come to fruition, everything in its place, shined and spit-polished, ready for…ready for what? To FINISH, as in done or end? That doesn't make much sense; it's imbecilic. That's not a living faith now is it? That's a DEAD faith stuck on a tree some 2,000-years ago. The temple was “consummated,” as in finished to perfection and ready to go, i.e. perform its intended function. And in the Douay-Rheims we find the consummation of Christ hanging on the tree “And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost;” a faith consummated (brought to a state of perfection) ready to be LIVED – a rebirth in yet another nuance.

“The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven.” But the residence of God on earth, by Divine order continues in Moses' Kingdom, given over to a new tenant with a new 'lend lease' contract. If God is present on earth (and He is; as promised he is always with us, everyday in the Eucharist) then he must domicile in his Tabernacle and the contents of that Tabernacle must also be present. God promised Moses a Kingdom till the end of times, there is no scriptural reference to the nullification in so far as I know. This consummated Kingdom of David continues, this consummated Kingdom of Christ continues.

It was these that Christ was addressing when he spoke of the hypocritical Pharisee, not the faithful. However what Christ hands over the 'Key' of the Kingdom to a new tenant, today's Catholic Church; the all inclusive (Jew and gentile) Kingdom we call the Roman Catholic Church. Christ gave us something much better, not only did he give us meat to feed the hunger of the soul but he gave us 'bread' to feed our faith, a bread of hope (Hope is what? The Twelve Apostles are the loaves of hope, though devoured in with an unquenchable fire, continually replenished; still manna for a vision of God. (Luke 3:16-17)

What is this day of Passover? This is the day the Sacrificial Lamb is taken to the Temple in Jerusalem and surrendered to God. Passover occurs over several days, but the day Christ died was the day they took the perfect sacrifice to the Temple. In ceremony it is offered up in a holocaust, the meat and is taken home for the Seder. Seder is a ceremonial family dinner where Judah gives thanks for death passing over them liberating them from the Pharaoh Egypt. Leaven bread is removed from the house, only unleavened is permitted. On the final day they offer simple prayers to consummate the ceremonies. The prayers include a grace over ceremonial unleavened bread (we'll discuss another time but for now, the metaphor of bread is knowledge) and wine, terminating was a simple acknowledgement that the ceremony is FINSHED, and that they look forward for the Messiah to come Next Year in Jerusalem.

This is what Christ meant on the Cross; IT HAS JUST BEGUN! Next Year in Jerusalem!

JoeT

JoeT777

Mar 2, 2010, 09:04 PM

Was it not true that the RC tortured people for who rejected their ways? No, it was not true.

Was it not true that they burnt people (who tried to translate the Bible) at stake?No, it was not true.

If our Lord maintained peace when slapped on the face what gives the "Vicar of Christ" to punish?
You seem awful worried about people you don't know, couldn't or wouldn't understand their culture. It wouldn't matter if it were the slappee or the slapper. The cultures out of which all these criticisms came are so different from ours it's impossible to judge with modern sensibilities. Also, people thought quite differently about 'religion' than they do today. Word's meant things, and the ideas behind the words were used to differentiate communities, a different community was a potential enemy, Christian or otherwise.

Second, you could, you will never know who is right or wrong. But, think about this, what other Christian faith puts ALL their doctrine, ALL the writings of their Fathers and Doctors on the web for your inspection. She also has her history on the internet. Have you read it? If not how can you know who is right and who is wrong. You're not being just to the topic, to the Church or to yourself. Look in the book! And find the answer – with comments like those above you can't tell me you already have – these statements are terribly ignorant. What you got is a good case of brainwashing – and that's what they accuse me of! Ha!

RCIC or RCIA teacher must've stunk - but maybe the fault isn't with the teacher.

It is obvious they were trying keep something at bay.
Right, it's all a 'Catholic Plot'! Keep telling yourself that. I never believed it, but I made it my business to find out as much 'truth' as this little pea brain could hold – I can't tell you I'm a genius, but what I can tell you is that the Protestants don't do history good - they tend to do the 're-wirte' thing. They usually can't go as far as 200 years back. Heck, they can't even get American history right! How well can we expect them to do with 2,000 years?

Was it not true that they burnt people (who tried to translate the Bible) at stake?
Great balls of fire, boy! It didn't matter who it was; dem folks in dem days simply loved human torches. They lined their front lawns with'em. Christians burnt as bright as Romans, Greeks, or Hindus. It was the culture, that in many ways being confronted by the Roman Church; sometimes they added to things we find unconscionable today. Again, you can't judge people in antiquity by today's sensibilities.

The tradition that the Apostles spoke of was the scripture based. Never did they deviate from the scripture. They had no tradition that was not scripturally supported and that is obvious from the scripture. But that is not the case with RC. Most of what they claim as tradition are not scriptural.

Really, then where did that bible you're reading come from? I'll tell ya; the Roman Catholic Church.

arcura

Mar 2, 2010, 09:08 PM

JoeT777

Mar 2, 2010, 09:19 PM

JoeT,
Did you read my question of the 4th cup posted here?
When Jesus said it is finished he was referring to His last supper in which He instituted the new covenant, the Eucharist.
He had just drank the fourth cup which finishes the traditional meal.
When you read the whole story as posted it the exegesis is clear.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Missed it. What is the post number? I'd like to look at it.

I found it. Great minds think alike.

"The Passover ceremony and ritual was not complete. There was no fourth cup. There was no announcement that it was finished. Could it be that Jesus was so upset with what He knew was about to happen that He forgot? " I knew of the 4 cup Jewish tradition at Passover, but never put the two toghter. Thanks much.

arcura

Mar 2, 2010, 11:04 PM

Joe,
I'm pleased that you got to look at that.
I got it from one of the best theologians in today's world, Dr. Scott Hahn.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Mar 3, 2010, 04:55 PM

Arcura

You mentioned some of the bad news about the RC which if you knew history well you would know that much of it is distorted, exaggerated, of is not true.

On the contrary I don't believe that anything I said about the RC that is exaggerated. If you believe so please be kind enough to point out anything I said that was exaggerated.

You failed to mention what the protestant did and in some cases are still doing to Catholics.

First of all a protestant is not a separate denomination. It is a general term used for non-catholics. Secondly I am not hear to present all the bad acts of the RC nor am I prove that some other church is better. All I am doing is only questioning the claim of authority of the RC which I believe is non-scriptural. So what someone is doing to the RC is not relevant to the topic of discussion.

But if you were confirmed a Catholic then you swore an oath to ALWAYS be a Catholic and to stand by it, explain it, teach it, and raise your children in it.

That would mean be a slave of it. I am aware that, that is what RC requires of us and I was confirmed. But I studied in the Bible that when one becomes a Christian he/she is freed from all bondages and is made a slave to Christ. A Christian is enslaved only to Christ.

arcura

Mar 3, 2010, 07:48 PM

inhisservice,
I also studied the bible as a Protestant and to prove the Catholic Church was wrong.
I found out that it was I and what I had been taught who was wrong.
I also studied real true history no more of what Catholic bashers wrote for they had an axe to grind. I wanted the real stuff form true historians.
The more I learned the more I really understood what the Catholic Church was and stood for.
I suspect that your Catholic teachers were not good ones if you did not really understand The Church and the God who established it and guides it to this very day.
No I'm not a slave to the Church I am a willing and dedicated servant to God Almighty and His Church.
That means I am free, free from the clutches of Satan and his devils.
Free from being lead away from God's Holy Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Mar 3, 2010, 09:08 PM

That would mean be a slave of itToo true, too true, like a man who becomes a slave to his betrothed, or his wife (hopefully not both at the same time); freed from the Law of the Pharisee only to be enslaved by Christ’s chains of the Law of Charity. A slave like a little boy or girl is a slave to the love for his mom and dad. Yep, a slave. Too true, a slave for sure.

JoeT

JoeT777

Mar 3, 2010, 09:13 PM

Fred, et al;

More on Passover:

Passover occurs on the 15th day Nissan. It's one of three festivals in Jewish tradition having historical and agricultural significance, Pesach (Passover), Shavu'ot and Sukkot. This year the Jewish Passover begins at sunset on March 29, 2010 and ends at nightfall April 6. To the Catholic it is a celebration of life and the 'Real Presence' of Christ. To the Jew Passover is the observances of the Exodus from Egypt (see Exodus Chpts. 1-15) with the religious observances are outlined in Chapter 12 of the book of Exodus. Its name is derived from root Pei-Smekh-Chet which means to “pass over” or “to spare.” To escape God's judgment over Egypt Moses and Aaron told the Israelis people to sacrifice an unblemished one-year old male lamb on the 14th day of Nissan. The blood of the sacrifice was painted on the side posts and header of the doors entering the house. The sacrifice lamb is then to be eaten with unleavened bread and lettuce (I'm sure the lettuce has some significance, but at this time I'm at a loss). The entire lamb, entrails and all are to be consumed; nothing is to remain by the morning of the next day. Any morsels left over are to be consumed by fire. Then the people of Israel are to be ready to travel. The blood was a sign that the plague should pass over the house, sparing the inhabitants from God's justice. All generations thereafter are to observe and keep this day in solemnity. “And the same day the Lord brought forth the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their companies.” (Exodus 12:51)

Today, this observance is kept by practicing Jews much the same way Moses commanded, the same way David celebrated Pesach, the same way Christ observed Passover, and the same way the Messianic Jew celebrates the sacrifice of the unblemished Lamb of God. The Messianic Jew today will celebrate the Seter with Tzafun (eating of the afikoman – “dessert” – don't worry it's not a sweet, it's a piece of unleavened bread) and Kos Shlishi (drinking of the 2nd cup) conjoined with communion remembering the Real Presence of Yeshua ('Jesus' in Aramaic). Catholics ought to feel right at home with this observance. But, that part that is specifically Jewish is found in 15 different steps.

In the order of the Seder, First is the Kaddesh: Sanctification and blessings over the first chalice. Kaddesh is the sanctifying blessing referring to always remembering the custom rituals commanded in the Exodus story. You keep the Kaddesh by refraining from immorality, being faithful to the customs. The second cup is filled after the blessing but before the ritual washing. Second is the Ur'chatz, or a ritual washing before the meal. There are many customs but most do not recite prayers or blessings at this point. The third step is the Karpas, simply the 'appetizer'. Fourth, Yachatz, is the breaking of the matzah. I'm told matzah is a unleavened bread similar in texture to a salted cracker. Three matzot (plural for matzah – I think) are staked in the middle of the table. The center piece of bread is broken in half, the large piece is hidden which becomes the afikoman or dessert. The smaller piece is returned to the table. By the way the Seder Table decorations rival the decorations found around the Easter Dinner Table.

Fifth, is the Maggid, that part of the Seter ceremonies retelling of the flight and freedom from Egypt with the bread of affliction whch is the matzot. Sixth, the Rachtzah, is the second washing and blessing in preparation of eating the matzah. Seventh, the Mtzi, which is the blessing over the breads and grains being served during the meal. Eighth, Matzah is another blessing over the matzah and small pieces of the matzah are eaten. Ninth, Maror, is the blessing over a bitter vegetable, such as horseradish, to represent the bitterness of slavery. Tenth, Korekh, the paschal offering is eaten with matzah and the bitter vegetable, resembling a sandwich. The blessing is said over the third cup while eating the pascchal offering (I think). Today, in the Jewish household there is no paschal sacrifice and a substitute is made.Eleventh, Shulchan Orekh, is the main meal traditionally beginning with a hard-boiled egg. Paschal offering, Easter eggs, it's beginning to be a lot like Easter, isn't it? Twelveth, Tzafun, which is the piece of bread that was broken off earlier in the eventing. Thirteenth, Barekh , is a grace said after the meal. Fourteenth, Hallel, songs and praises , Psalms 113-114 and Psalms 114-118, with the final Psalm 136, “Praise the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endures for ever.” Fifteenth and finally, Nirtzah which is the closing blessings, “Mighty is He”, an Aramaic song, ending the Passover Seder; some believe the song is symbolically recalls God's promise to return them to Israel. Finally, 'it is finished”, the Seder is over “Next year in Jerusalem!”

The similarities between Christ's life and mission leading up to the Cross are uncannily clear in the Passover Seder. Present and the focal point is the Paschal Lamb. The unleavened bread, is representative of the Twelve Loaves of the Presence Bread, the bread of knowledge, the Twelve Apostles. Have I shown the relationship between The Twelve, The Twelve Loaves of Proposition, and the revealed knowledge of God's revelation?

JoeT

ked1

Mar 3, 2010, 09:31 PM

Not necessarily, the person who says it might be Orthodox Christian, so he might be referring to... you have to go by the context.

Maggie 3

Mar 3, 2010, 11:29 PM

The one true church is the universal body of believers everwhere who have given their hearts to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
That is the only true church. Eph. 1:22 & 23 & Col. 1:18 & 19
The bible teaches us that we must maintain the unity of the Spirit
Until we come into unity of faith. Eph. 4:13
When you are looking for a church home, the first thing to do is to
Ask the Lord to guide you. Ask Him where He wants you. Find a church that is true to the Bible, one where the people love Jesus Christ and serve Him as Lord. Are the doctrine, teaching, and practice of the church in accordance with the Word of God? Do the members try to live out the doctrine they profess? If you find those characteristics and a warm fellowship, the church may be for you.

Love and Blessings, Maggie 3

arcura

Mar 4, 2010, 01:39 PM

Joe,
Yes you have.
Very good.
Another demonstration that the Catholic Church is God's Holy Church on earth.
Fred

450donn

Mar 4, 2010, 02:26 PM

Joe,
Yes you have.
Very good.
Another demonstration that the Catholic Church is God's Holy Church on earth.
Fred

Unbelievable!:rolleyes::o
How insulting can you get to everybody that is not from your religion!

paraclete

Mar 4, 2010, 02:50 PM

Joe,
Yes you have.
Very good.
Another demonstration that the Catholic Church is God's Holy Church on earth.
Fred

You are not into being inclusive, are you? People who have to keep making such statements, Fred, show considerable insecurity.

arcura

Mar 4, 2010, 10:35 PM

450donn and paraclete...
I spoke the truth as I believe and know it.
It is a matter of personal conviction that comes from all I went through to prove that the Catholic Church was wrong and then finding out that what I thought and had been taught was very wrong.
All my friends and blood relatives were and are Protestant except for my aunt who eventually became a Catholic.
They thought I had gone nuts.
Now, after many years, they finally accept that I'm not crazy and that I did what I thought was best.
Praise God for that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Mar 5, 2010, 06:04 AM

JoeT777

The Sacrificial Lamb paid for all sins, IT WAS FINISHED;

I believe I typed "Christ has done everything we need to be saved." That is the same thing you have elaborated. Moreover why do you mock? Mocking is what atheists do when they are not able to answer any issue. I don't expect that form a Christian. A Christian is supposed to maintain a humble heart. "It is finished" just means the task is accomplished. I thought that was obvious. You have wasted your time in typing such a big article about something that is obvious.

I have already explained that Jesus after He ascended to heaven came back to dwell in us as the HOLY Spirit. That should explain it all.

GO, GO and sin, sin, all you need do is ‘believe’.

That was very offences to a Bible believing Christian has this attitude. Is it beyond your capacity to speak offensively?

“The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven.” But the residence of God on earth, by Divine order continues in Moses’ Kingdom, given over to a new tenant with a new ‘lend lease’ contract. If God is present on earth (and He is; as promised he is always with us, everyday in the Eucharist) then he must domicile in his Tabernacle and the contents of that Tabernacle must also be present.

First of all provide scriptural backup for your claims. Where did God promise that He would always be with us in the Eucharist? Also do you mean to say that God is with us only in Eucharist? By the way you have still not commented on the Holy Spirit? Where is that third person of the trinity? Is God not present where the Holy Spirit is? I hope you don't ignore these questions as you have done to my other questions, and instead address them.

Kingdom we call the Roman Catholic Church. Christ gave us something much better, not only did he give us meat to feed the hunger of the soul but he gave us ‘bread’ to feed our faith, a bread of hope (Hope is what? The Twelve Apostles are the loaves of hope, though devoured in with an unquenchable fire, continually replenished; still manna for a vision of God. (Luke 3:16-17)

This makes absolutely no sense at all and the verse speaks nothing you have typed. Either you are fully confused or are unable express yourself clearly. I would be happy if you explain that paragraph better.

No, it was not true.

Rejecting the obvious history.

But, think about this, what other Christian faith puts ALL their doctrine, ALL the writings of their Fathers and Doctors on the web for your inspection.

Those documents are all man made. Scripture has been inspired and protect by out Lord. Which of these should one trust?

She also has her history on the internet.

And you seriously believe that they are going to put in all of their own blunders there? Surely they would edit it out. Besides the history of the RC is well known anyway.

What you got is a good case of brainwashing

Then everyone learning history is brainwashed against RC.

Protestants don’t do history good - they tend to do the 're-wirte' thing.

Protestants re-wrote history?? I did not know that they were the ones writing history!! Please have a serious discussion here.

Great balls of fire, boy! It didn’t matter who it was; dem folks in dem days simply loved human torches. They lined their front lawns with’em. Christians burnt as bright as Romans, Greeks, or Hindus. It was the culture, that in many ways being confronted by the Roman Church; sometimes they added to things we find unconscionable today. Again, you can’t judge people in antiquity by today’s sensibilities.

So in some culture burning at stake is okay? That was a criminal offence and you can't excuse it with culture. It is wrong whatever is the culture.

Really, then where did that bible you’re reading come from? I’ll tell ya; the Roman Catholic Church.

So?

inhisservice

Mar 5, 2010, 06:16 AM

Arcura

It is a matter of personal conviction that comes from all I went through to prove that the Catholic Church was wrong and then finding out that what I thought and had been taught was very wrong.
All my friends and blood relatives were and are Protestant except for my aunt who eventually became a Catholic.
They thought I had gone nuts.
Now, after many years, they finally accept that I'm not crazy and that I did what I thought was best.

That does not mean anything. I could say this:

It is a matter of personal conviction that comes from all I went through to prove that the Catholic Church was right and then finding out that what I thought and had been taught was very wrong. So I went out of it. All my friends and blood relatives were and are Catholics except for my father who eventually came out from it.
They thought I had gone nuts.
Now, after many years, they finally accept that I'm not crazy and that I did what I thought was best.

450donn

Mar 5, 2010, 07:24 AM

So Fred, by your comments here and on some other posts I am understanding that you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY organization that preaches the true word of God! This sort of insensitivity is not only downright wrong it is an insult to the Christians that frequent this board. No wonder there has been so many Christians that have simply given up and left. Comments like this from members of the RCC have been protected for as long as I have been on here and now I fully understand. This forum is NOT a Christianity forum, but a blatant RCC forum to the exclusion of all others.

JoeT777

Mar 5, 2010, 11:44 AM

I believe I typed "Christ has done everything we need to be saved." That is the same thing you have elaborated. Moreover why do you mock? Mocking is what atheists do when they are not able to answer any issue. I don't expect that form a Christian. A Christian is supposed to maintain a humble heart. "It is finished" just means the task is accomplished. I thought that was obvious. You have wasted your time in typing such a big article about something that is obvious.

Actually, what you said was “It is finished: John 19:30 - If sacrifices are not required the priests have no office anymore.” But, be that as it may, I was suggesting that Christ established his Kingdom, selected, as it were, a hierarchy of bishops, established priests, deacons, etc, all of which were to teach all that Christ taught, the Kingdom, then priests were much in demand, and an office ordained by Christ. In other words, it was the beginning – not the end.

"Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”. Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, William Cardinal Levada, July 2007.

I have already explained that Jesus after He ascended to heaven came back to dwell in us as the HOLY Spirit. That should explain it all.

This can't be right; not at all. Assuming you believe in the Holy Trinity, what this implies is that there are only two Persons in the Trinity and that Christ has three natures, man, God, and Holy Spirit. Catholics and most Christians believe that the Holy Trinity comprises three Persons, God (the Godhead), Christ and the Holy Spirit. Three distinct persons each with their own nature – except that Christ has two natures, that of man and God. Further by suggesting that Christ went to heaven and came back makes the rest of Scripture out wrong. This type of error I'm trying to point out; Scripture and Tradition must be in harmony with each other and the Church. In doing so, what happens is you find yourself 'Catholic.' And this is because, this was Christ's mission to establish HIS Kingdom, not Luther's, not Jim Jones', not Calvin's.

That was very offences to a Bible believing Christian has this attitude. Is it beyond your capacity to speak offensively?

I can understand how this might seem to you to be offensive, but again, in my cynical way, the intent is to point out how illogical it is to suggest that Christ came, died on the Cross and leaving us here without both a earthly body and a spiritual body, i.e. the Church.

As to “GO, GO and sin, sin, all you need do is 'believe'.” is a cynical paraphrase of Lord Luther's :

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner. (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther's Works,”)

You might say "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!" This is the kind of logic that allows subjective reasoning.

First of all provide scriptural backup for your claims. see https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-11.html#post2210169 and https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-16.html

Where did God promise that He would always be with us in the Eucharist? See John 6

Also do you mean to say that God is with us only in Eucharist? Don't think I did.

By the way you have still not commented on the Holy Spirit? Where is that third person of the trinity? Is God not present where the Holy Spirit is? I hope you don't ignore these questions as you have done to my other questions, and instead address them. I don't know that I understand the question. Do you view the Holy Spirit as a 'being' with form? Or is it a spirit that possesses people like the evil spirits driven out by Christ? Or is it a Spirit that Guides and protects the Magisterium of the Church?

This makes absolutely no sense at all and the verse speaks nothing you have typed. Either you are fully confused or are unable express yourself clearly. I would be happy if you explain that paragraph better.

Please do explain.

Being in the presence of Christ, you might say the Apostles were the Shewbread that feed His lambs. Ever wonder why Christ said this to Peter? It's my opinion that Peter and the others were to feed them knowledge of a hope in Christ. We need to be shown the need for hope and understand the promise of hope before we can have hope. [Cf. "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) "holy bread" (1 Samuel 21:6), "bread of piles" (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), "continual bread" (Numbers 4:7), or simply "bread" (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23)] Not as the manna from heaven, but a different type of food, you might say our first grace, knowledge of Christ.

The reason for Christ's baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, “I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it's here we see the reasons for John's indulgence. It's here and during Christ's passion where we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. It's here that The Twelve 'loaves of proposition” are exposed to the Holy of Hollies.

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) being described. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. “And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses” The bread was exposed to God, remaining there for about a week. Then in at the appropriate time, it was removed and used by the priests for substance.

Offering His self as the manna of life, Christ eclipsed the renewed baptism from merely renovating the Jew's soul, transforming it to a Baptism of a rebirth in a new spirit as adopted sons of God. “Not until then, assuredly, 'were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach'. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It's in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, “he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas says that the “role of The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): 'What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?' Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e. "hope has no place in them." Conversely, given knowledge Christ gives us hope for a future vision of Christ.

Sometimes Scriptures are described as being 'witnesses to Christ's sacrifice. While in a general sense they are. However, they aren't the infallible rule of faith. As C.K. Chesterton once suggested, “for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. .. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God.”

JoeT