 |
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 01:48 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sndbay
[U]sound words, which thou hast heard
This refers to oral teaching, teaching that was spoken, not written (it doesn't say "which you have read"). This is oral tradition.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 02:07 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
This refers to oral teaching, teaching that was spoken, not written (it doesn't say "which you have read"). This is oral tradition.
Oh No... sound doctrine is of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error... of one who keeps the graces and is strong... otherwise it is fables and untrue.
Example:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 02:18 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sndbay
Joe: I was not sure what the teaching of Magisterium was? What I found as: According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly . The Infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching under certain circumstances.
FYI: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium
You may be interested in what Catholics view as “Tradition and Living Magisterium".
JoeT
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 02:21 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sndbay
Oh No... sound doctrine is of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error... of one who keeps the graces and is strong... otherwise it is fables and untrue.
Example:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
How do you have a “sound doctrine” without a “sound Authority?” And too, I didn’t think y’all even looked to doctrine?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 02:24 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sndbay
Glad you retracted this by saying Christ is te Rock.. One has to holdfast to the Rock of Salvation.
Uhmm. I didn't retract that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church. When did I do that? Or, was it that your questions were 'trick' questions?
JoeT
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 02:40 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sndbay
Oh No... sound doctrine is of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error... of one who keeps the graces and is strong... otherwise it is fables and untrue.
Example:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
It doesn't follow from this that sound doctrine is only found in the written texts of Scripture. We know that Christ and the Apostles taught orally, and fortunately much of what they taught orally has been preserved, some of it in the texts of the NT and some of it in the form of orally transmitted doctrine.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that we are bound by the whole of revelation, not just that portion of it that was written down and incorporated in the fourth century into the New Testament. Scripture is an absolutely vital and indispensable part of revelation, but it isn't the whole of it and never was. Remember that the earliest Christians didn't have the NT yet: The texts of the NT began to be composed in the early 50's and weren't complete until very near the end of the first century. It was another couple of hundred years before those books were canonized at Nicaea. When you appeal to the NT, you are appealing to a canon of Scripture that was assembled by Catholic-Orthodox bishops at the Council of Nicaea. Prior to that, there was no universally accepted canon of Scripture. Recall that for quite a long time, the Gospel of John was regarded by many as non-canonical. It was only provided that it was included along with the Johannine epistles that it was made part of the canon at all.
Oral tradition guided the composition, selection, and ratification of the books of Scripture. It wasn't until modern times that the importance of oral tradition was challenged. Early Christians regarded it as having equal standing with written tradition (i.e. Scripture) and as an essential guide to properly understanding what was written.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 04:10 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by sndbay
Anyhow I discern that traditions are what I consider by all denominations the error of teaching. (The traditions of scripture doctrine verse man's doctrine. )
There is an incontrovertible truth that Christ transmitted His words to the Apostles to be taught to His Church. Having received the Word of God from the very mouth of Christ the Apostles were endowed with the Spirit to faithfully teach the Divine instruction taught to them. In my way of thinking, to deny this is to deny Christ; I'll try to explain. Non-Catholics will rely solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author’s Divine inspiration. Protestants and Evangelicals (non-Catholic) will deny the Apostles Holy inspiration which is to question the veracity of Scriptures themselves. This conflict forms a self-centered subjective theological conundrum which invariably must, must always deny the absolute teaching Authority of the Catholic Church because the very Word of Christ is questioned.
This is why you subjectively consider the Magisterium and Tradition of the Church error. As yet, I’ve never heard a convincing argument why the Word of Christ, as taught by the Apostles, and kept faithfully by their successors should be ignored in favor of a predetermined subjective reading of a book – which in essence will always evolve into the “opinion” of the reader. This seems counterintuitive because to do so is transfer the adoration of Christ to a book. And too, such readings confine God’s revelations to only those found in the Bible. For example, we would not have any understanding of the Holy Trinity or the two natures of Christ. As I figure it, by demanding ‘freedom’ from the Church is to deny Christ and to becoming chained to sin.
JoeT
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 06:10 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by JoeT777
Does the Catholic Chruch follow Peter or Christ? The Church follows Christ through the teachings of the Magisterium.
This is a key point - the members of the denomination must believe and follow what the denomination teaches regardless of what is taught in scripture. They are therefore following the leadership of the church while claiming the authority of Jesus.
What would the Catholic Church consider as being betroth to Christ? The Church is the Bride of Christ!
Second issue - nowhere does scripture says that a denomination is the bride of Christ, but rather those who are saved are members individually.
Does the Catholic Church consider Christ as the Rock? Founder, foundation, even a rock if need be; yes!
"... even a Rock if need be"??
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 06:11 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by JoeT777
How do you have a “sound doctrine” without a “sound Authority?” And too, I didn’t think y’all even looked to doctrine?
Believers were given a sound authority - the Bible.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 06:12 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by JoeT777
Uhmm. I didn't retract that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church. When did I do that? or, was it that your questions were 'trick' questions?
If I understand it, you are saying that Peter is the Rock, and Jesus only " if need be". Is that correct?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 09:50 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by JoeT777
Non-Catholics will rely solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author’s Divine inspiration.
Hi Joe!
Could I ask you to explain this? It may very well be my fault and not yours (in fact, it probably is my fault), but I'm not sure I followed you here.
Thanks.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 09:51 PM
|
|
sndbay
Peter is the Rock Jesus spoke of, the one on which Jesus will build His Church.
Jesus is the supreme Rock.
Jesus pick Peter to be His main servant on earth.
That is what the pope is yet today, a servant just a Jesus drected.
Matthew 20: 26. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
27. And whoever would be first among you must be your slave;
Peace and kindness,
Fred
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 10:21 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by arcura
sndbay
Peter is the Rock Jesus spoke of, the one on which Jesus will build His Church.
1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV
Jesus is the supreme Rock.
Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV
Eph 5:23
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 10:29 PM
|
|
It is interesting that at 1Cor.3.10, Paul says that he himself laid a foundation: "According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I LAID A FOUNDATION, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
v.11: "for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ."
So either Paul is flatly contradicting himself--which I think we can rule out--or talk of laying a foundation means something different in v.10 than it does in v.11. If this is so, as it must be since Paul is not contradicting himself, care has to be taken over these verses.
EDIT:
I would argue that, as Fred has said, Christ is the "ultimate" foundation. But this doesn't run afoul of what has been said in the OP.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 10:50 PM
|
|
Akoue,
Right you are.
Besides that this question is FOR biblical and historical evidence that Peter was the leader of the apostles.
Tj3, has posted several times but not once has he answered the request.
He has offered no such evidence.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 11:28 PM
|
|
Non-Catholics will rely solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author's Divine inspiration.
 Originally Posted by Akoue
Hi Joe!
Could I ask you to explain this? It may very well be my fault and not yours (in fact, it probably is my fault), but I'm not sure I followed you here.
Thanks.
The fault is far from yours. In an effort to be brief I failed to properly project my thoughts. I intended to express the opinion that those who believe in 'bible only' usually assign a subjective meaning to any passages you and I refer to as 'Catholic' such as the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude. This especially holds true for Matt 16:16-20. Over exaggerating of course, the exegesis of this passage is sometimes rendered so poorly by non-Catholics your left wonder whether Christ is in New York or Paris. It bears no resemblance to how the Catholics have held the verse for 2,000 years. More important, the reason for rendering such verses this way is to avoid lending any credence to the Authority of the Church; this is a direct threat to the ideals of Protestantism. If Rome has any Authority, then Protestantism becomes just that, a protest, i.e. schism. Consequently, non-Catholics are compelled to transfer this 'Authority' from the Pope. But to where? If it's to another entity, then you are simply left with another Pope like figure or a doctrinal driven organization whose authority lies simply in the power of persuasion. Thus we find the non-Catholic argument that the authority of one's faith lies in Holy Scripture; this stance is taken in the face of the Holy Scriptures' complete silence on the sole authority of one's faith is scriptural. Too, ignored is the fact that Holy Scriptures are part of the Tradition of Catholic Church. That's why so many times Catholic hear that the 'Church' wasn't founded until 400 A.D. – scriptures need to be in place prior to the founding of the Catholic Church so the rightful claim of Tradition in Scripture can't be applied.
I won't go into here, but we take our faith to be objective in the sense that it is revealed by God, and kept alive in the teachings of the Apostles. There is another element to faith which 'believes without seeing.” But either way, both take an objective rationality. Non-Catholic faith is based on subjectivity. That is, 'what I believe is true for me, and what you believe is true for you'. (It butchers the concept of absolute truth doesn't it?) In my opinion, this subjectivity turns inwardly for authority. The Catholic will look outwardly to conform to God's cosmic Truths. In contrast the non-Catholic is forced to look inwardly to form God to their predetermined 'subjective Truth'.
As history seems to witness since Luther, is that this eventually evolves into narrow-minded assertion of the individual's unconditional right to absolute independence from religion, society, social norms, and authority – authority of any type. These intellectual giants postulate “their” truth, free of the restraints formed principles or ethics; after all there are no respected authorities, so why should they be constrained.
Non-Catholics, must by their nature, proclaim themselves supreme arbiter of truth. This is quite often done by invoking the Holy Spirit. I know my understanding of Scripture is correct because the Holy Spirit tells me so. But, what's lost is the fact that their non-Catholic kinsman makes the same claim for a different truth. Which is correct? Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. The non-Catholic Christian trait is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God's will. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; thus the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." This ideology becomes progressively independent of God's authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority. Tracking the liberal trait of autonomous authority over morality it can be seen to become asymptotic to atheism – and 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.
Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic). (Liberalism Is A Sin by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886)
My statement 'solely on the literal meaning of the Bible, while simultaneously denying the author's Divine inspiration' might have been better rendered if I had said it as follows:
Solely on a subjective meaning of the Bible, one with a predetermined conclusion, while simultaneously is denying any outward Authority of Divine inspiration.
Well, I tried to clear it up!
JoeT
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 11, 2009, 11:39 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Akoue
It is interesting that at 1Cor.3.10, Paul says that he himself laid a foundation: "According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I LAID A FOUNDATION, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
v.11: "for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ."
So either Paul is flatly contradicting himself--which I think we can rule out--or talk of laying a foundation means something different in v.10 than it does in v.11. If this is so, as it must be since Paul is not contradicting himself, care has to be taken over these verses.
EDIT:
I would argue that, as Fred has said, Christ is the "ultimate" foundation. But this doesn't run afoul of what has been said in the OP.
Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.
When building, the name of the founder (the authority) is 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.
Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.
JoeT
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 12, 2009, 12:04 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by JoeT777
Scripture says that Christ is both the head and the foundation.
When building, the name of the founder (the authority) is 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.
Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.
JoeT
First, thanks for the clarification in your previous post.
Second: I find this talk about foundations to be a bit, well, odd. I wonder if people don't sometimes strain the metaphor past the breaking point. What I mean is that in one sense of "foundation" Christ is clearly the sole foundation of the faith and of the Church. And there is a sense in which Peter is the foundation of the Church. In other words, the two claims aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Christ is the head and foundation of the Catholic Church. But this doesn't preclude Peter from having been the leader of the Apostles. Nor does it preclude Peter from having been the "rock" on which Christ built his Church. Anyone who thought that the Catholic view is that Peter somehow supplanted Christ would be profoundly confused about Catholicism.
As I say, I think there are people who take the architectural metaphor in hand and just really run amok with it.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 12, 2009, 03:38 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by Tj3
1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV
Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV
Eph 5:23
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV
Tom, that was worth repeating .. And I wanted to agree but it doesn't always let us.
The authority in scripture is God Himself... And Christ fulfilled the Spiritual Truth, that was indeed written by the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Peter loved Christ ...
 Originally Posted by JoeT777
How do you have a “sound doctrine” without a “sound Authority?” And too, I didn't think y'all even looked to doctrine?
My sound authority is The Holy Spirit.. I would not reject The Holy Spirit ..
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 12, 2009, 04:01 AM
|
|
These men too are the rock that Peter was called. That rock held to the name given at birth..
"a rock or stone"
1) Peter was one of the apostles
2) Simon called Zelotes or the Kanaites
3) Simon, father of Judas who betrayed Jesus.
4) Simon Magus, the Samaritan wizard
5) Simon the tanner, Ac. 10
6) Simon the Pharisee, Luke 7:40-44
7) Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Christ
8) Simon the cousin of Jesus, the son of Cleophas
9) Simon the leper, so called to distinguish him from others of the same name
This does not make any of them The Rock of Salvation.
2 Samuel 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.
It is God!
2 Samuel 22:51 [He is] the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader Part (4)
[ 149 Answers ]
***EDITED**** We are not going to address the previous posts which have been closed for varoius reasons, we can address the new question : Fr Chuck >>>
Part 4: can we find in early history and scripture evidence of Bishops, priests, and deacons?
JoeT
What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader Part (3)
[ 30 Answers ]
Arcura originally asked “What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader?”
As I understand Acura's question, it was meant to be fact finding in nature. The topic was closed before many of the verses could be discussed.
Part 2 of this question asked, “Can we find other similar...
What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader? Part (2)
[ 137 Answers ]
Arcura asked “What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader?” He writes:
I was very impressed with Rick's response (link)
Many have understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter since Christ's era. This can be illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in...
View more questions
Search
|