 |
Joe DarlinC,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The only church I am aware of is the body of Christ which is ALL true believers. I was simply saying wherever you choose to gather to worship make sure it is to HIS name and NOT a organization. So we disagreed. But we often do! :)
Also... We don't have a schizophrenic God... we just have many people who have NO idea how to rightly divide the word of God and therefore get very very confused and trapped in wrong doctrine.
It's not a claim, rather it's scriptural. It can be shown both scripturally as well as through Tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I never stated you couldn't find salvation. I only stated that the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church.Quote:
I know all the arguments; it doesn't mean we can't find salvation or that we aren't an "ecclesiastical community," we're just "separated brethren" who are a little "defective."
Arrogant I can be; but I took no pretense nor did I pass judgment.Quote:
Doesn't scripture say a thing or two about such arrogance, such pretense, such judgmentalism?
The decision was made by Christ; remember the founding of the RCC is found in Scripture as written by the Apostles. So, it is an Apostolic Church.Quote:
Who decided we were kind of OK, but defective anyway? Was it the sixteenth Council which declared all, even the pope were subject to the Council? Or was it say, the twentieth Council which declared the Pope's definitions were "irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church? Or did that come later?
Nobody made any judgments in an attempt to determine what's in the heart; a lot has been read into what I've said that simply isn't there – a sort of subjective prejudice I suspect (now that was a judgment!). There is a difference, small on many issues, huge differences on others. If it wasn't obvious that there was a difference you wouldn't be so angry. If in fact you are saying there is no difference from one Christian religion to the next using a subjective judgment – are you discriminating on what feels good? Where did Christ say “one faith in me is as good as another?” It's my recollection he said something altogether different; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20)Quote:
Didn't Peter himself give an indication of how wrongheaded such a belief is, when he declared "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Baptist or whatever, it only matters that your heart is "purified by faith" in Christ .
JoeT
Please do.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I believe I acknowledged that it "doesn't mean we can't find salvation."Quote:
I never stated you couldn’t find salvation.
Yes, that goes with the other claims I listed, all of which are accurate according to the Vatican are they not?Quote:
I only stated that the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church.
I've seen numerous Catholics say such things as "the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church" and the Roman Catholic Church is "the one and only church" without seeing the arrogance, the pretense and the judgment in the statements. This is the problem.Quote:
Arrogant I can be; but I took no pretense nor did I pass judgment.
I don't go around telling my Catholic friends that they don't have the fullness of the faith, that my church is "the one and only church" or that their church is "defective." That is EXACTLY the kind of thing Jesus himself battled. That is EXACTLY what Paul - who never showed any subservience to Peter or any other - battled.
Right, Peter was a Roman Catholic. Please explain that one.Quote:
The decision was made by Christ; remember the founding of the RCC is found in Scripture as written by the Apostles. So, it is an Apostolic Church.
First of all Joe I'm not angry and my judgment was on the claim of the RCC being "the one and only church," not you. I acknowledged first your sincerity, but that the problem is even in that sincerity those who make such claims can't see the arrogance and condescension of the claim.Quote:
Nobody made any judgments in an attempt to determine what’s in the heart; a lot has been read into what I’ve said that simply isn’t there – a sort of subjective prejudice I suspect (now that was a judgment!). There is a difference, small on many issues, huge differences on others. If it wasn’t obvious that there was a difference you wouldn’t be so angry.
No, on what is true. The changed lives, the miraculous prayers answered, the magnificent ministries in place, completely apart from the RCC in the name of Christ give lie to any claims of exclusivity or superiority in the Catholic Church.Quote:
If in fact you are saying there is no difference from one Christian religion to the next using a subjective judgment – are you discriminating on what feels good?
One - in Christ - which is an impossibility if one church sees every other as lesser. Can't you see that Joe? I can hardly be one with you if you see the body of Christ I belong to as inferior.Quote:
Where did Christ say “one faith in me is as good as another?” It’s my recollection he said something altogether different; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20)
I see you continue to hold to old beliefs discredited by Vatican II. If Catholics have not abandoned this "we are the only true Church" rubbish, I fear for them. God is never schitzo, only his followers exhibit this traint. How you can read the Word of God and believe the rubbish you do is beyond me. There is legitimate expression in diversity just because Jesus told us when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
We Christians hold to the truth of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice but Christ makes his home in the heart of the believer not in a building, Therefore when believers come together in Christ's name there is power irrespective of whether they are in a Church building or not. Some of the most powerful experiences I have had in God have been in a home where a prayer meeting is being conducted and not a dog collar in sight.
I disagree – but we'll save the discussion for another time.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I can agree in spirit – yes we should all gather together in His name.Quote:
I was simply saying wherever you choose to gather to worship make sure it is to HIS name and NOT a organization. So we disagreed. But we often do! :)
There is only one Truth, God's truth. There is only one reality, God's reality. It's not a subjective truth, nor is it relative to our condition of being, it is an absolute Truth. Of all the Christian churches, there is one and only one true Church, God's Church. Of all religions, Christian or otherwise, there is only one true Church, God's Church.Quote:
Also... We don't have a schizophrenic God... we just have many people who have NO idea how to rightly divide the word of God and therefore get very very confused and trapped in wrong doctrine.
Bringing any two different religions together to discern which is correct and which isn't different tenets become obvious, different morals are seen, and we can find different truths held by each. If they didn't then they would be the same Church. In our discernment we see that there are only two conclusions we can draw; one is correct or they are both wrong, but we know that God's word isn't wrong because it is Truth. Therefore we can come to only one conclusion; there is only One True Church. Another truism is that Scriptures as well as the teaching of Apostles' are true. They teach that there is only One Church commissioned by Christ which is headed by Peter and his successors, it was true when uttered by Christ, it was true in the first century after Christ's ascension, it was true 400 years after Christ's ascension and it was true in 1520 as well as today. To believe otherwise would mean that there is a division being created; truth versus untruth - with both to be held equal, i.e. relativism. Our discernment can only end with the one conclusion. There is one and only One Church; to hold otherwise would mean God is schizophrenic.
JoeT
Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium are both Vatican II documents - I cited both. I didn’t offer you my beliefs, even still I hold to those of the RCC. As previously cited, the Roman Catholic Church holds itself as the “one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts,[ Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 2:18-19] which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable…For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.” Can such views be classified as ‘diverse’ views when a Catholic expresses them? Or not? Or are only non-Catholic views valid?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You’re correct, God isn’t schizophrenic from which we can conclude that he doesn’t commission separate churches with different tenets. Whether it is legitimate to express diverse views isn’t the same as saying that those diverse views hold the same absolute Truth.Quote:
God is never schitzo, only his followers exhibit this traint. How you can read the Word of God and believe the rubbish you do is beyond me. There is legitimate expression in diversity just because Jesus told us when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst.
? I’m at a loss, what does a spying a dog collar nearby have to do with our discussion?Quote:
We Christians hold to the truth of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice but Christ makes his home in the heart of the believer not in a building, Therefore when believers come together in Christ's name there is power irrespective of whether they are in a Church building or not. Some of the most powerful experiences I have had in God have been in a home where a prayer meeting is being conducted and not a dog collar in sight.
JoeT
Joe you know very well that when I speak of a dog collar I speak of clergy, an invention of an apostate churchQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Joe,
It should be no surprise to all that I do agree with you.
Jesus founded but one Church and appointed Peter as its leader.
The bible shows us that the other apostles went along with that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You're absolutely correct, Peter was the first Pope and by extension the first Catholic. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
In the way of setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.
You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.
17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 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.
I can't claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once in Matthew 16:17. It's only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor's gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)
In plain language the meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won't prevail against it.
19 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.
The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.
“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
Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 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.
In verse 17 Christ is obviously pleased seeing that this knowledge didn't come from human reason, but rather the knowledge was a Grace from Aba (Father). Some have suggested that the re-naming of Simon to a little pebble in v. 18 is a reprimand. Consiqently they would have Jesus say, effectively, Woe to you Peter... you have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wished to enter! But, thereafter say, I will build a church on your faith to which the gates of hell will not prevail. Excuse me for finding this impossible to swallow. It doesn't even meet the definition of “scripture interprets scripture.”
One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church). But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys in the book of Revelations are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? The reason they're not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter
In addition, we find that each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals. For these reasons, and other not mentioned Catholics hold Peter the Apostle on which Christ built his Church, the first Pope.
It's important to note, that these were the Bishops and Popes that followed Peter. They didn't need to write a book, they lived the history of Apostolic succession and knew its teaching authority first hand. To these men head of the Church was fused to the Chair of Peter since Peter's death.
I've managed to collect nearly 20 pages of various quotes from the early Church dating from the early Church, approximately 90 AD to about 400 AD. Each consistently shows that Peter was held to be the Prime Bishop, Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome the first See, holder of the keys, etc. But I will only bore you with the first two pages. It's quite clear that Peter was clearly understood to be the first Vicar of Christ.
Doctrine and authority of the bishop in Rome was then passed to Clement I, bishop of Rome (circa 90 AD rebuked the Corinthian authority. It is likely the Apostle John was still alive. Pope Clement both rebukes the schism to pull the Corinthian Church in line. Here too we see a further congealing of the Church's Apostolic and priestly structure.
We see a historical continuance the Church in the latter part of the first century. A well defined hierarchy can be clearly deduced. In The Shepherd of Hermas, Hermas wrote, “You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens[bishop of Rome] and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his [authoritative letter] to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.” It's not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.
St. Ignatius holds a marked reverence for the founders of the Christian faith in Rome as well as a respect for their authority. Furthermore he seems to be deferring to Rome on several matters in his epistle to the Romans, c 110 AD. When arrested and sent to Rome to eventually be martyred sometime between 98 and 117, he entrusts his diocese in Antioch to the Roman See; twice using the term prokathetai (primacy); “has the primacy in the place of the region of the Romans” presiding in love (prokathemene tes agapes). Furthermore we find St Ignatius using phases such as 'first-seat' and the Episcopal seat, "You [the Roman bishop] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1).
Marching through time we find St. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing around 180 AD, " Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
St. Irenaeus describes St. Victor's excommunication of the Asian Churches from the Universal Church in other writings. Equally important was the fact that no one challenged St. Victor's authority in the excommunication. St. Victor was the bishop of Rome, 189-19. St. Irenaeus wrote to him and pleaded with him not to do it, for the sake of the peace of the Church, and St. Victor relented.
St. Clement of Alexandria (between 190-210 AD), in Clement, On the Rich Man, writes, " Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) refers to the Pope as the first bishop of bishops, “ Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men” From which we can also deduce that it was important to trace the heredity of the bishop to the Apostles. "
Tertullian also wrote, " What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11 which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?." Depeictied here is the knowledge that Christ ordained his Apostles, establish His Church in them, commissioned them to teach with Christ's authority symbolized in the keys.
Tertullian writes further, "Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, 'whence also our authority derives'. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island."
I’ve seen and done quite a few things in my life; some good, some not so good. I’ve always spoken straight forward and up front - its been taken wrong and misunderstood a number of times. But I hope this type of disrespect cannot be counted among my sins; I find it distasteful.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
JoeT
Thanks Fred, I never doubted where you stood.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
JoeT
Maggie 3: do you really agree with disrespecting the clergy when they wear a Roman collar? I knew we didn't often agree, but surly you don't agree with this? Have I misjudged you?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
JoeT
JoeT777,
Very well done.
Thanks,
Fred
Please explain how "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter." That sure seems like a mighty grand assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And yet somehow every time this discussion comes up the rest of the passage is ignored. The parts where Jesus asked all of his disciples who he was and the part immediately following he charged all of his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," as if Peter was the only who got who He was. And then there's that part where Jesus called Peter an "offense" to Him. Even Peter, as does the rest of scripture makes clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, not any man. The only Rock on which the church is built is Christ Himself, as Peter acknowledged.Quote:
In plain language the meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.
How can you take one brief passage, where Christ was speaking to all of His disciples, and conclude He gave "supreme authority" over the church to Peter - particularly when as I mentioned earlier Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his dissension from the gospel?Quote:
The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.
Word play is not needed to make the case.Quote:
“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some.. "
How can you use the example of Christ, "the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David," the One who Himself gave them "a door opened, which no man can shut" as a "very good reason" to accept the primacy of Peter? In the passage Christ has the key, Christ opened the door, and no man can shut it. To every church in Revelation Christ was the one speaking. Where exactly did Peter come in here?Quote:
One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David.
I'm not presuming or assuming anything. Scripture is clear as clear can be that no man needs the successors of Peter to enter the gates of heaven. I'm sorry, but I believe it is an affront to God to assume that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without going through the successors of Peter. I have the keys to the kingdom of heaven in scripture, where the only specific requirement given is to believe in Christ.Quote:
Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? The reason they’re not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter
Paul, in writing to the Roman church (why was it Paul and not Peter?) declared "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."
He then goes on to say even so, even though the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, everyone is without excuse because "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them." Where is Peter here?
Again, what is Paul's place in this? Why did Paul pen most of the New Testament? Why did Paul write to the Roman church with a most thorough exposition on the doctrines of salvation and grace? Why did Paul rebuke Peter if he should have given him deference? Why did Christ use John to reveal things to come in the church and not Peter?Quote:
In addition, we find that each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals.
But when do we first see the primacy of Peter clearly established in these historical writings?Quote:
It’s not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.
Peter and Paul? The "two most glorious apostles?"Quote:
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul
I can't argue with that, it supports my position entirely.Quote:
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
I see nothing contradictory with my position here.Quote:
" Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “
"Masters," teachers," "them," "their," "they." Joe, I don't deny some early authority in the Roman church, I don't deny apostolic succession, I don't deny a hierarchy in the church. But I don't see any clear declaration of Peter's supreme authority over the entire church of Christ. Tertullian seems to have come closest, but even he concludes your argument with praise of the work and sacrifice for that church by Peter, Paul and John. I wholeheartedly recognize the same. But I do not see any justification anywhere that I have to go through the Roman Catholic Church in any way to get through the gates of heaven.Quote:
" What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11"
Tweren’t no assumption atall. Christ tells us why, ” Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I’m not sure what significance this plays, except that the Apostles did as they were told. It was known to all of the Apostles; the verses 13-15 tell us they were involved in the conversation. Furthermore, verse 20 uses the plural of ‘disciple’ telling us that all the disciples knew.Quote:
And yet somehow every time this discussion comes up the rest of the passage is ignored. The parts where Jesus asked all of his disciples who he was and the part immediately following he charged all of his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," as if Peter was the only who got who He was.
Peter’s offenses or sins merely show his humanity. Catholics is a community of both the holy and the sinner. There is a building technique used today when the founding soils are too soft to support the building. This technique ‘stresses’ the soils to consolidate it into loadbearing mass. I often think of Peter’s offenses in the same way – stressing the foundation on which Christ builds a great Church.Quote:
And then there's that part where Jesus called Peter an "offense" to Him. Even Peter, as does the rest of scripture makes clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, not any man. The only Rock on which the church is built is Christ Himself, as Peter acknowledged.
Most all buildings are built and named after the founder (the ‘authority’ that caused the construction). 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 faith was bequeathed by God, i.e. Peter is the Foundation of the Church.
The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder. Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.
It seems to me that breaking down Matthew 16:16-19 into their essential elements we have the following bits of fact:
1. Christ is the authority, the founder of the Church. It is His name that the Roman Church bears.
2. Christ knew Peter’s revelation that Jesus was God, recognizing the supernatural source of his faith
3. Christ named Simon Bar-Jona to “Rock” The title of Peter's office.
4. Peter was handed the authority and designated as the “foundation” on which Christ builds his Church.
5. The gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church
6. The keys to bind and loosen where given to Peter.
In this we see the classic transfer of power from a more authoritative source to a lesser authority. Christ has the authority to give Peter a subservient role. In so doing, Peter is given a title, “the Rock” on which He can ultimately rely on. The only thing left is the wherewithal to accomplish the goal, the building a Church. This is done with the keys. In the keys are the powers with which Peter needs to accomplish his assigned goals; the power to bind and loosen – in heaven or on earth. Any authority must designate who has power, the extent of that power, and must provide the wherewithal to accomplish the goals. We see all of this in Matthew 16.
Thus, Peter was given a title of for his office, a mission to accomplish, and the wherewithal to achieve his goal. Only the most convoluted logic can come to any other conclusion from this passage. Peter the first Pope.
You don’t take one passage. But if you take the entire New and Old Testaments it can be shown that Christ’s mission on earth had several facets. One was fulfillment of the Old Testament, another was performing miracles, important here is that Christ established his Kingdom on Earth, i.e. the Church. Without establishing a Kingdom, Christ could never be the messianic savior promised in the Old Testament.Quote:
How can you take one brief passage, where Christ was speaking to all of His disciples, and conclude He gave "supreme authority" over the church to Peter - particularly when as I mentioned earlier Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his dissension from the gospel?
The point was that in Revelations the Key that “openeth and no man shutteth” is in heaven. The Key of Eliacim is the Key of authority of Juda. So, two of the three keys are accounted for. The third Key, the Key to Bind an loose is not mentioned in Revelations. Where is it? Who has it if Peter or his successor doesn’t? Where are the missing Keys? The point is that the Keys were important symbols of authority in antiquity, and Peter was given the Keys to bind and loosen. Thus we hold that the authority Christ vested in Peter remains in his successors.Quote:
How can you use the example of Christ, "the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David," the One who Himself gave them "a door opened, which no man can shut" as a "very good reason" to accept the primacy of Peter? In the passage Christ has the key, Christ opened the door, and no man can shut it. To every church in Revelation Christ was the one speaking. Where exactly did Peter come in here?
I would suggest that the Scriptures can only be clear when we look at Christ as the Messianic King establishing his Kingdom on Earth. Only then is the New Testament in harmony from book to book, chapter to chapter as well as being in harmony with the Old Testament. That Kingdom is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.Quote:
I'm not presuming or assuming anything. Scripture is clear as clear can be that no man needs the successors of Peter to enter the gates of heaven. I'm sorry, but I believe it is an affront to God to assume that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without going through the successors of Peter. I have the keys to the kingdom of heaven in scripture, where the only specific requirement given is to believe in Christ.
JoeT
Joe, I'm not going to continue to argue, I said from the beginning we would end up agreeing to disagree. But that absolutely does not give ANY indication that "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And I asked, and you never answered, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? I acknowledge the history of the early church, but the Roman Catholic Church is a far cry from that church.Quote:
That Kingdom is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.
The OP title, "hypocrites and haters" are words that are often thrown at anyone who dares to say that the lifestyle of the one using these terms is wrong.
Telling someone he is wrong is not hatred.
It is only hypocritical if the person pointing out the sin is just as guilty andis making no effort to change his/her own behavour.
Pointing out someone's error or sin can very well be tough love.
Now a question:
Acts 19:1-2
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
(KJV)
That question is just as pertinent today as it was then.
How could the Apostles tell that believers had received the Holy Ghost?
Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(KJV)
Acts 10:45-47
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(KJV)
Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
(KJV)
Acts 8:18-19
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)
In this case something happened that was immediately obvious. If not speaking with tongues, then what?
No one will ever convince me that having a wafer placed on your tongue and being patted on the cheek equals being filled with the Holy Ghost.
The Church of the Book of Acts is plainly a Holy Ghost Church. When did that change into an institution founded on form and ceremony? This question should be seriously considered by all denominations.
Also... I would like to note that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. AND... the mystery of the "church" wasn't revealed UNTIL Paul Through Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ. During Christ ministry... poor ol Peter had NO clue of what was going to happen. He had no clue Christ had to die... he had no clue gentiles were going to be included. He didn't even know what the church really was. ( the bride of Christ) Even when he spoke to the Jews in the book of Acts and 3000 Jews were saved.. he didn't understand the plan of salvation. Because it still had not been revealed! Which by the way is believing in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord and accepting it by faith. He was waiting for the Lord Jesus to return and set up His earthy Kingdom.
Give me the verse that the KINGDOM is the Roman Catholic church! I'd LOVE to see THAT in the word of GOD.
Don't get me wrong.. Peter is one of my favorite apostles but Paul had to "get on him" so to speak for going back to legalism.
There is NOTHING in the epistles to suggest that the little assemblies being started were Roman Catholic. QUITE the contrary.
One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast majority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.
We find this unity in Scripture and tradition. The following are scriptural evidence of Unity.
• Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);
• He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),
• to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);
• to a vine and its branches,
• to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).
• Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and
• He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).
Unity References by St. Paul.
• Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).
• Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).
• And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).
• To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
• Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).
• Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)
JoeT
Lots of good Scripture here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
So why has the RC departed from the pattern and practices clearly established by Peter, Paul, John, James and the rest of that first Church during its earliest years?
You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.
Is it? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I ran across this after ClassyT's comment. When we look at these verses together it is easier to see how Luke explained the relationship between Christ, His Church, Peter and Paul. We know from Acts 9 that Paul was slaughtering Christians and had asked to go to Damascus in hopes catching the big fishes; "And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9: 1). Yet after Paul's visitation, falling to the ground he hears Jesus ask, “why do you persecute ME.” (Cf. Acts 9:4) Wasn't Paul chasing after dem rascally Apostles? He wasn't chasing out after Jesus – as far as Paul was concerned Jesus was dead and buried. You can imagine how he wondered who this aberration was, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” (Act 22:8). How can you persecute a dead man? How can Paul be guilty of persecuting Jesus of Nazareth who is dead? Why would Paul want to persecute a dead Jew? It's kind of pointless to persecute a dead man, isn't it?
Maybe Christ meant, “Why are you persecuting my Church”;now that would make good sense. And we're all about good sense aren't we? But, he didn't say that he said, 'why persecute ME'. Why indeed?
Catholics hear it clearly, Christ was saying since the Church and I are one, why persecute her. Jesus and the Church are like bridegroom and bride, One faith, One body, in Jesus' flesh and blood i.e. the Eucharist.
JoeT
Hey, Guys, I'd like to give you a thought on authority debate particularly the supremacy of Peter. If Peter was to be the leader of the whole Church why did Jesus personally appoint Paul as apostle to the gentiles. He didn't have Peter do it. Could it be that Peter wasn't getting the job done but sitting on his blessed assurance in Jerusalem or that he was a little too jewish as indicated by his actions in Antioch. Or could it be that the model is that no man is head of the Church on Earth but Christ aloneQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
We see in Paul a fresh beginning therefore indicating that Jesus didn't hold to a single stream but was looking to the future of different churches in different places. Apparently Peter's leadership then as now was not sufficient to get the job done
I won't go so far as to say that Peter wasn't getting the job done... for the Lord knows everything and wouldn't have appointed him the leader and then change his mind. I just don't think Peter WAS EVER to be the apostle to the gentiles nor have the position that Paul had... but I love to read about Peter. I can certainly relate to him and his impulsive behavior. He was and is special to the Lord and certainly has his rightful place in the Kingdom. He just wasn't the first POPE... sorry Joe777. The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servants and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else.. save the Lord himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
There is none righteous... no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. We ALL need to be saved from our sinful nature... including Mary the mother of our Lord. And just because men exalt MAN... be it the Pope, or any apostle of the Lord... doesn't make it right. There is no verse in the BIBLE that says we are to exalt anyone but the Lord Jesus himself. However if you happen to find anything in the NT... that says otherwise, please let me know. ( I'm speaking to anyone who thinks Roman Catholics are the true and one church.) and I also mean no disrespect.. I'm just saying... give me the verse in the NT. Mathew through Revelation. Or better yet any of the 66 books of the Bible.
Agree ClassyT, and there is scripture that documents Peter saying there is no other name then Christ Jesus that is the stone which was set at nought of the builders.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Act 4:8-10 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11-12 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Christ will always be forever and ever the Rock, and REFER (1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls)
The sad part is that the RCC doesn't appear to have read the book of Revelation. There you find seven Churches each one different and the Lord doesn't say you guys need to get together under the headship of Peter, or one of his successors, Peter being dead by this time, he addresses the uniqueness of each one and their short comings and among them is very clearly what is now the RCC. It's what Jesus didn't say that gives us the clue, he didn't say that anyone of them was outside of Christ, but that they each needed to maintain focus on what is important.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
classyT & sndbay I agree, and thank you.
Maggie 3
Joe,
You have been very clear and easy to understand.
I wish that when I was on the road to Rome I have someone who could do as well as you do with that. It took me quite sometime to get good clear understanding.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Chirst is one with each and every member, and there are many members within the church (Romans 12:5)
1 Corinthains 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
There is no one church or no one man, that can place themselves above another. This was told of in parable. And we can compare why, and watch for the warning of a red flag
(Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others)
The parable goes as written and I pray that all can understand who was justified, The Pharisee or the publican?
Luke 18:10-20 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
What tends to be misunderstood is that Christ did not come to give peace, because he dealt with what is a division of right and wrong. What is taking place today has been so for years and years. We are called to salvation, and told to follow the will of God. And the choice is in whom you choose to follow. Christ made it perfectly clear the path that should be followed. And as scripture tells us, we live by the WORD of GOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
REFER: (Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division)
And I would agree Paraclete, it doesn't appear that the Catholic's recognizes there are seven churches in which the Revelation of Christ was revealed to us by what John was shown. If we were to examine what each church teaches, we then are able to understand which 2 were found to be favorable in the eyes of God.
I would say Joe, it is best you not judge Maggie or anyone else for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And I trust the point would be, that what we may see in any man or woman that do wear garments to identify they are from a church, can also be used in a deceptve plot. The Roman collar does not represent purity or any level of esteem above other men or woman. If it were, they just might choke on that collar.
REFER: The clerical collar is a fairly modern invention (the detachable collar itself is supposed to have been invented in 1827), although the "collarino" may date as far back as the 17th century. The Church of England's Enquiry Centre reports (citing the Glasgow Herald of December 6, 1894) that the practice of Anglican clergy wearing a detachable clerical collar was invented by a Rev Dr Donald McLeod[1] and became more popular through the Oxford Movement. The clerical collar has no particular religious meaning apart from identifying the person wearing it as a member of the clergy.
That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective." How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.
Why would we care to interpret such a clear passage any other way? If a risen, living, Jesus Christ spoke to Paul asking why are you persecuting "me," Paul's response is “Who art thou, Lord? " Jesus' response is "I am Jesus of Nazareth," and Paul goes on to preach the rest of his life of a risen Savior who lives, why would we interpret that to mean anything other than what it says?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Joe is very hung up on the phrase One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic without realising that the word catholic is not capitalised in the Creed and this phrase is itself a fabrication of the Church. This became doctrine in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, In some languages, for example, German, the Latin "catholica" was traditionally translated as "christian" before the Reformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Magnifying a half truth into a whole only fools the user into believing the proposition is truer. Even still, as a matter of convenience some find it profitable to 'tweak' the meaning of phases and words, as you've done here with 'Catholic', to arrive at some truth more to your predilections. While not being an expert of etymology it's clear that most scholars would agree the word 'Catholic' comes from the Greek katholou; meaning 'throughout the whole' or more succinctly 'universal'. The word was used by pre-Christian Greek as it was with the early Church. Justin Martyr (circa 165 AD) used it to refer to the 'general' resurrection or the catholic resurrection (St. Justin Martyr, "De resurrect.", vii sqq Dialogue with Trypho 81); Teretullian, “the catholic goodness of God”; Ireneaus, “the four catholic winds”.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We know that at least one German some 489 years ago had a notorious ignorance of “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” Given his rendering, the argument that the pre-schismatic rendering was to mean 'Christian' seems a bit trivial. This is because when Catholic is used in the phase “the Catholic Church”, (in Greek, he katholike ekkesia) we find a 'mia mone' implied (an implication of a “one and only Church” ). This is clearly seen in St. Clement's Stomata as early as the mid-second century writing in defense of the faith against heretics:
“From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone (sic), collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith— which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord— those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Stromata, VII, xvii) (the emphasis is mine)
JoeT
In the OP, Rachie speaks of losing faith. Here is the cure for that condition.
Rom 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(KJV)
My advice to you is STUDY the Word of God, more than a cursory reading, and see what the Church was when Jesus established it.
Disregard all partisian arguments, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and the promise is:
John 16:13-14
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.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
(KJV)
If you will follow this advice you will NOT lose your faith, in fact you may find it for the first time.
You have my prayers.
JoeT , I have high respect for the Catholic Church. I know that you who are Catholic
Love the Lord and are very dedicated to your beliefs. God loves you and all who try
To follow Him. I believe we make a mistake if we think that the church, any church,
Has the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. The true church is made
Up of believers in Jesus Christ- what scipture calls the "body of christ". They are to be
"lights in the world". And are going to be lights in a dark world, we need to be careful to identify with the "person of Jesus Christ" and to recognize, not the church but the "Word of God" as our authority. I love all my catholic friends and there deep faith. I go to a
Church that teaches the word of God, the bible, and we follow Jesus. I believe with all
My heart what the bible says to me. Each of us makes up in our heart and mind what is
Right for them, and what they believe shoud be what they follow. I pray and read the bible a lot and seek Gods guidance. I believe the Lord wants me to live in faith and
Do bible things, bible ways. God know our hearts and He is the judge.
Love and Blessing, Maggie3
sndbay,
We are not here to judge one another and the 7 churches paraclete mentioned were all under The Church that was founded by Jesus for the were started by the apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I don't know. If you're interested I would suggest looking at Vatican II's Decree on Ecumrnism - Unitatis Redintegratio .Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I explained in an earlier post, seethe following link it might make it clearer. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)Quote:
“How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."
I explained in an earlier post, but look into this link. It explains far better than any explanation I might come up with. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the ApostlesQuote:
Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.
It's not Paul's response that's of importance, rather its Christ's question to Paul; “why do you persecute me.”Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
As I tried to explain in a previous post, Acts relates a story of Paul's miraculous vision. In order for the story to make any sense you have to understand that there is a mia mone Catholic Church (that is one and only Catholic Church). This Church was created by Christ, commissioned by Christ, sent out to teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Cf. Matt 28:20). Without one and only one Church the vision on the road to Damascus would be meaningless. It requires at least understanding that there is existing corporate ecclesiastical body, a society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ .
We're told in Acts of Paul's fervent zeal to eradicate any existing resemblance of a following after what he took to be Christ's death. And in Paul's mind he was dead and gone – a devout Jew can't believe otherwise – even to this day. Paul was an obsessed dragon who had taken on the cruel oppression of Christ's remnant following. This dragon was “…breathing … slaughter against the disciples.” As a result when “a light from heaven shined round about him” Paul had no idea who, or for that matter what, this apparition was. Hence “Who art thou, Lord?” is uttered, likely in fear.
The apparition responded “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest” (Acts 22:8). Christ the man was far beyond persecution. Arius would say that Christ wasn't the third person in the Trinity; therefore He was dead and no threat Paul. We know Arius is wrong; Christ ascended into heaven, where his keeps to his promise to protect His Church, a Church where not even the” gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernaturally connected to Christ through the sacraments (Cf. John 15:5). The individual is integral part of this body (Cf. John 15:7-12) held together and moved as single body as if by ligaments and Joints (Cf. John 15:16; Colossians 2:19). This Church has one head, Christ; and one body in service to Christ. It's through the Church that one develops a likeness of Christ (Cf. John 15:13-15), a holiness. It's a virtuous union leading to the fullness of Christ's salvation (Cf. Ephesians 1:23) It's only in this union that we become whole (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). This is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, “For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17).
Thus, Christ's statement is meaningless when He asks Paul why do you persecute; unless Christ is talking about his Mystical body. Why didn't the apparition say, why do you persecute my followers? Or, why didn't He ask why do you persecute Peter's Church? Paul knew nothing of the early Church, but he knew where the Apostles were; but, Paul was still on the road to Damascus in his effort to find the Apostles – in the story he's not there yet. Paul didn't hang Jesus on the Cross that distinction goes to the Sanhedrin; therefore Paul isn't guilty of harming Christ directly – so why is the apparition complaining of persecution? But, we do know that two years after the ascension that Paul is seen at Stephen's stoning (Cf. Acts 7:58; 8:1), so Paul was guilty of persecuting the Church. Paul persecuted the Church for at least four years after Christ's Crucifixion (Cf. Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6 – not Christ. Why then would Christ accuse Paul of persecuting Him? Unless, unless, the apparition was referring to the persecution of His Mystical Body, His Church. In order to persecute a body – it has to exist. This is just one example of why we know that there is One Body, One Faith in Christ, One Church, with One Head of that Church, Jesus Christ.
JoeT
JoeT.
Thanks for the excellent explanation concerning the road to Damascus and Saul (who became Paul).
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Joseph!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
First, what Paul encountered was NOT a "aparition" but the LORD JESUS CHRIST... GLORIFIED! Christ asked him why he persecuted HIM.. because when you persecute a believer in Christ... you persecute HIM directly. Christ is IN US and we are IN HIM. These are spiritual truths that are difficult to understand but none the less TRUE. I feel certain you would agree with me... so far)
Anyone who accpeted the Lord Jesus before Pauls' ministry was certainly part of the
Church. And it is INDEED ONE body, One Faith and ONE CHURCH. ( not CATHOLIC though) BUT that doesn't mean that they fully comprehended GRACE. The Lord Jesus chose to reveal the mystery of the church and the period of GRACE to the Apostle Paul. (This is what the BIBLE says... not me.) The early Jewish believers had no comprehension of Grace and grafting in Gentiles because the Lord hadn't revealed them yet. However this doesn't make them any less part of the body of Christ.
You err when you think the ONE church is catholic. It is and always will be EVERY person who puts his faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross. THAT is the ONE body, that is the ONE faith, that is the one CHURCH! It just isn't a denomination... no way, no how. It is all about JESUS.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM. |