[arcura]

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

[inhisservice]

arcura

There are reasons Peter cannot be the rock.

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

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

Please quote verses for this.

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

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

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

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

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

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

You have still not shown me any verse to support your claim that the Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.

[inhisservice]

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

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

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

[JoeT777]

JoeT777

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

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

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

You don't seem to understand my position.

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

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

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

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

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

JoeT

[JoeT777]

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

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

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

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

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

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


JoeT

[sndbay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JoeT

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


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

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

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

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

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

[JoeT777]

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

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




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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

Help me out Sndbay, what does metaphor mean?

JoeT

[arcura]

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

[Fr_Chuck]

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

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

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

[450donn]

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

[inhisservice]

JoeT777

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arcura]

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

[inhisservice]

sndbay

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

[arcura]

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

[JoeT777]

[QUOTE=inhisservice;2247602]JoeT777
Yes there is but where is the evidence in the scripture that the early church is the RC?

First of all a Christian is one who follows Christ and the Word of God that is the Holy Scriptures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


JoeT

[arcura]

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

[450donn]

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

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

[NeedKarma]

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

Actually that is incorrect. The definition of the word cult does not care which/whose teachings they are: Cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[450donn]

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