Ask Me Help Desk - IS the "Church" the same as the "Roman Catholic Church"?

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

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

Arcura

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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".

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

JoeT777

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Which is what you assume it to mean...

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inhisservice

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'.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcura

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

JoeT777

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

... 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.