OFFICE OF POPE IN THE BIBLE

[epostle1]

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS AGREE, PETER IS THE ROCK

John Broadus (Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .”
(Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.”
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647 page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy"
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”
(The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter"
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

 

[ScottA]

Chapter and verse, please.

The 100% spiritual or invisible church cannot exist. It cannot bind and loose (a rabbinical term). Jesus builds His church on the person of Peter, but not without the spirit of God. You make a false dichotomy. To you, it cannot be both. The Holy books of the Bible was compiled by visible, flesh and blood human beings. The spirit of God superintended this very human process. God didn't do it without flesh and blood. The canon of Scripture is a big problem for Protestants. Some go so far as to invent Bible origin fantasies because they refuse to admit we have a Bible realized by the authority of the Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther didn't deny it.

di·chot·o·my (google)
[dīˈkädəmē]

NOUN

1. 
   a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
   "a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"
   synonyms: division · separation · divorce · split · gulf · chasm · difference · contrast · disjunction · polarity · lack of consistency · contradiction · antagonism

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/vatican_says_protestants_not_churches.php

http://www.catholiclane.com/refuting-the-myth-of-the-invisible-church/

Please explain how the spirit of God refuted the Arian heresy, the Nestorian heresy, the Apollarian heresy, and every heresy in the patristic period, without the use of flesh and blood human beings.

Mark 2:27
"And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Which saying, when He said it, seemed just as absurd. And now you have it backward also.

In the same way, the word is for the spirit, not the spirit for the word. Likewise, the church for the spirit also.

But you favor the works of the flesh which perishes, and cling to that which is fallen, as if it should be glorified. This was never the plan. You have it all wrong. The vessel that carries the water has no glory of its own.

Do not think that Christ has come to bring glory to the flesh, but rather that He has come to bring glory to God...whom is spirit. "The flesh profits nothing."

 

[ScottA]

Wrong. Peter did not understand why Jesus would go to Jerusalem where is was dangerous for Jesus. Try reading the context. You are rebuking half the New Testament. Peter was not yet Pope, and Peter gave no teaching. I've already pointed this out but your prejudice prevents you from seeing the obvious. This is sheer nonsense. Peter taught the "object of what Jesus said" and ultimately, lived it to his death. Jesus said no such thing.

You misunderstand.

Jesus spoke in parable. "My words are spirit." In this case Peter was the object of the parable but not the subject. The object of all parables is never the subject. In this case, the subject was how Christ would build His church...which by Peter's own words, is not of flesh and blood as you say, but "living stones" - "a spiritual house."

These things Peter was indeed clear on - but men were not.

And now you are a child of the teachings of men, denying that Jesus even said what I quoted from the scriptures as the subject of the parable of which He spoke, that His church would be built by the same means by which Peter received the truth of who Jesus was.

 

[epostle1]

Jesus spoke in parable. "My words are spirit." In this case Peter was the object of the parable but not the subject. The object of all parables is never the subject. In this case, the subject was how Christ would build His church...which by Peter's own words, is not of flesh and blood as you say, but "living stones" - "a spiritual house."

These things Peter was indeed clear on - but men were not.

And now you are a child of the teachings of men, denying that Jesus even said what I quoted from the scriptures as the subject of the parable of which He spoke, that His church would be built by the same means by which Peter received the truth of who Jesus was.

Not all metaphors are spirit. It's not me that denies the spiritual/physical aspects of the Eucharist.

Mark 2:27
"And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Which saying, when He said it, seemed just as absurd. And now you have it backward also.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION, and NOTHING to do with post #61 (scroll up). You have a habit of posting off topic rabbit trails.

In the same way, the word is for the spirit, not the spirit for the word. Likewise, the church for the spirit also.

I am aware that the Church is spiritual, but she is also physical. Jesus PHYSICALLY died on the cross. The physical, visible Church is Jesus on earth. To say that Jesus is all spiritual is a Gnostic heresy. To say the Church is only spiritual is also a heresy.

But you favor the works of the flesh which perishes, and cling to that which is fallen, as if it should be glorified. This was never the plan. You have it all wrong. The vessel that carries the water has no glory of its own.

No, I cling to 2000 of consistent and developed teaching. What you are saying isn't even Christian.

Do not think that Christ has come to bring glory to the flesh, but rather that He has come to bring glory to God...whom is spirit. "The flesh profits nothing."

Jesus was glorified on the cross. "The flesh profits nothing." comes from John 6. It has nothing to do with your gnostic tendencies.
Gnosticism teaches duality in Material (Matter) versus Spiritual or Body (evil) versus Soul (good). Gnosticism teaches that the natural or material world will and should be destroyed (total annihilation) by the true spiritual God in order to free mankind from the reign of the false God or Demiurge.
List of Christian heresies - Wikipedia

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

How would you answer this question? How did Jesus answer them? See John 6:53-58.

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

You are in the flesh to a certain degree. You don't have enough faith to accept the 2000 year old teaching of the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It was not seriously questioned for 1500 years.

John 6:63 – Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

Luke 1:37 – with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Matt. 19:6 – Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 2: 7,12 – Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

 

[Taken]

Just to clarify , here is the relevant section from the catechism:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

And the toddler version of that means what?

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Philip James]

And the toddler version of that means what?

God Bless,
Taken

The Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to declare erroneous doctrine on faith and morals.

 

[Taken]

The Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to declare erroneous doctrine on faith and morals.

Pope Francis says Jesus failed at the cross
On YouTube under that heading.

Perhaps you will view and comment how that is inline with him being infallible.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[ScottA]

Not all metaphors are spirit. It's not me that denies the spiritual/physical aspects of the Eucharist.
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION, and NOTHING to do with post #61 (scroll up). You have a habit of posting off topic rabbit trails.

You cannot say that all metaphors are spirit, if you mean scripture, unless you mean to say that all scripture is not from God...because "My words are spirit."

What I have said to you has everything to do with the discussion. But it is a hard saying and you do not receive it, just as many did not receive it when Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But you, like they, misunderstand and even make it too complicated when it is simple: All this means is that one must "partake" with and of Christ in order to be saved - "No one comes to the Father except through Me." Again, this is a simple parable to which I have agreed and presented to you as the spiritual understanding of a physical enactment. But you reject it and lash out at me as if I were speaking heresy...as if to reject the Spirit whom I have presented to you.

I am aware that the Church is spiritual, but she is also physical. Jesus PHYSICALLY died on the cross. The physical, visible Church is Jesus on earth. To say that Jesus is all spiritual is a Gnostic heresy. To say the Church is only spiritual is also a heresy.
No, I cling to 2000 of consistent and developed teaching. What you are saying isn't even Christian.

I am quoting the scriptures and explaining them, for they are in parable and must be discerned spiritually. But you speak out of one side of your mouth as if to condone the spirit, and then out of the other condemning Him, as if He has no business in these matters, when Jesus said that this is the very means by which He will build His church - and still you reject it. This does not speak well of you.

Jesus was glorified on the cross. "The flesh profits nothing." comes from John 6. It has nothing to do with your gnostic tendencies.
Gnosticism teaches duality in Material (Matter) versus Spiritual or Body (evil) versus Soul (good). Gnosticism teaches that the natural or material world will and should be destroyed (total annihilation) by the true spiritual God in order to free mankind from the reign of the false God or Demiurge.
List of Christian heresies - Wikipedia

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

How would you answer this question? How did Jesus answer them? See John 6:53-58.

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

You are in the flesh to a certain degree. You don't have enough faith to accept the 2000 year old teaching of the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It was not seriously questioned for 1500 years.

John 6:63 – Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

Luke 1:37 – with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Matt. 19:6 – Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 2: 7,12 – Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

You say that Jesus was glorified on the cross, as if death were victory. But no, death is not victory, but rather, He paid the price for sin, wherein there is no glory: Sin had no glory to be attained. Glory is therefore, not attributed to the cross, but to Christ who paid the price, and to God who gave His only Son - which, as He said, gives no profit to the flesh, but rather to the Spirit who gave it.

Meanwhile, you more than wrestle with the Spirit. I speak against the flesh because it is fallen and flawed, and for the Spirit, and you reject it all categorically, calling names and associations which I have no part with.

 

[epostle1]

You cannot say that all metaphors are spirit, if you mean scripture, unless you mean to say that all scripture is not from God...because "My words are spirit."

I didn't say that. "My words are spirit." is not a metaphor. It's removed from it's context in John 6. You take large parts of scripture literally but not John 6. You do not have supernatural faith to believe Jesus' words.[/quote]

What I have said to you has everything to do with the discussion.

We are not discussing the Sabbath.

But it is a hard saying and you do not receive it, just as many did not receive it when Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But you, like they, misunderstand and even make it too complicated when it is simple: All this means is that one must "partake" with and of Christ in order to be saved - "No one comes to the Father except through Me."

That does not mean "eat my Flesh and drink My Blood. What it means is in John 14, not John 6.

Again, this is a simple parable to which I have agreed and presented to you as the spiritual understanding of a physical enactment. But you reject it and lash out at me as if I were speaking heresy...as if to reject the Spirit whom I have presented to you.
I am quoting the scriptures and explaining them, for they are in parable, and must be discerned spiritually. But you speak out of one side of your mouth as if to condone the spirit, and then out of the other condemning Him, as if He has no business in these matters, when Jesus said that this is the very means by which He will build His church - and still you reject it. This does not speak well of you.

There are no parables in John 6.

You say that Jesus was glorified on the cross, as if death were victory. But no, death is not victory, but rather, He paid the price for sin, wherein there is no glory: Sin had no glory to be attained. Glory is therefore, not attributed to the cross, but to Christ who paid the price, and to God who gave His only Son - which, as He said, gives no profit to the flesh, but rather to the Spirit who gave it.

That is not what John 6 says. We are to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood, in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine. You say Christ paid the price for our sin and His death is not a victory??? C'mon Scott, you are not making sense. If you cannot accept Jesus clear and emphatic teaching, then walk away like they did in John 6:66.

Meanwhile, you more than wrestle with the Spirit. I speak against the flesh and for the Spirit, and you reject it all categorically, calling names and associations which I have no part with.

But you don't speak against the flesh that cannot comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist, so you look at it with eyes of the flesh, and not supernatural faith.

"I speak against the flesh and for the Spirit" is not Christianity. It's Gnosticism. The human body is not evil.

John 6:53 – 58 – Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

Four times isn't enough for you. If Jesus meant "partake of Me spiritually or symbolically" He would have said so.

John 6:23-53 – however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat.

While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 – as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 – Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 – Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 – many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

You won't find a metaphorical use of the word "trogos" anywhere in scripture.
You won't find a metaphorical use of the word "sarx" anywhere in scripture.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 – here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 – Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him.

YOU ARE NOT READY FOR ANY OF THIS, BECAUSE YOU LACK SUPERNATURAL FAITH, YOU ARE STILL IN THE FLESH.

 

[epostle1]

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 – the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 – the same translation is used by Paul – “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 – to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 – Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 – Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood. A SPIRITUAL PARTAKING GOES WITH EATING HIS FLESH, AND DRINKING HIS BLOOD IN THE FORM OF CONSECRATED BREAD AND WINE.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 – no one outside the “family of God” shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

1 Cor. 10:18 – in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 10:16 – Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 – in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 – this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 – thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 – from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.” Not "partake spiritually of Me and forget that messy Bread and Wine stuff".

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 – in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

But you can't grasp any of this because you are trying perceive with a fleshly mind. So you harden your heart and reject it. Take a walk. John 6:66.

 

[ScottA]

Your reply quotes are messed up and mix up your replies with my comments, so you may need to go back and fix things. But you are going on and on and I see that I will have to take things one point at a time, as you are all over the map with errors. I will start here:

I didn't say that. "My words are spirit." is not a metaphor. It's removed from it's context in John 6. You take large parts of scripture literally but not John 6. You do not have supernatural faith to believe Jesus' words.

You are missing the point and making allowances for yourself that are not allowed, therefore I said, "You cannot say that 'Not all metaphors are spirit', if you mean scripture, unless you mean to say that all scripture is not from God...because "My words are spirit."

There is no room for debate here. All "scripture must be discerned spiritually" because it is not mere literature. As such, God has explained the scriptures as being a form of "likeness" and an "image" of what is completely true only in the kingdom and not necessarily in the world. Which things are only "manifest" in the world and referred to as "parables", in word, form, and in actions. There are no exceptions. Even Christ is referred to in parable, as "God with us", as "seen", while God otherwise remains "unseen."

More, regarding the OP to follow.

 

[Philip James]

Pope Francis says Jesus failed at the cross
On YouTube under that heading.

Perhaps you will view and comment how that is inline with him being infallible.

God Bless,
Taken

Hi Taken,
Regardless of what the pope may or may not have been trying to say in that homily, infallibillty would not apply.

Infallabilty aplies when the pope is officialy declaring some doctrine that is binding on all the faithful.

Where exactly that line is drawn, is not a settled question.

Here is an example that may clarify it for you: http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/hvinfallible.asp

Or make it more cloudy lol. As you can see

Peace!

 

[ScottA]

"I speak against the flesh and for the Spirit" is not Christianity. It's Gnosticism. The human body is not evil.

Jesus committed only His spirit to the Father and not His flesh, and this we are to follow. Does that make Jesus a Gnostic then? No, certainly not. Nor does it make me or anyone who seeks the kingdom of God in spirit and in truth a Gnostic. That is a false accusation.

I say again, "The flesh profits nothing."

 

[Philip James]

Jesus committed only His spirit to the Father and not His flesh, and this we are to follow. Does that make Jesus a Gnostic then? No, certainly not. Nor does it make me or anyone who seeks the kingdom of God in spirit and in truth a Gnostic. That is a false accusation.

I say again, "The flesh profits nothing."

And on the third day HE rose again! His body Glorified!
Dont you DARE say HIS flesh counts for nothing! HE sacrificed HIS flesh for you! And for the whole world!

It is your fleshy understanding that is worthless..

 

[epostle1]

Jesus committed only His spirit to the Father and not His flesh, and this we are to follow. Does that make Jesus a Gnostic then? No, certainly not. Nor does it make me or anyone who seeks the kingdom of God in spirit and in truth a Gnostic. That is a false accusation.

I say again, "The flesh profits nothing."

Do you want to discuss the scriptures in the OP regarding the office of "Pope' in the Bible???
Do you want to discuss the Eucharist that you don't believe in???
Do you want to argue about what a metaphor or symbol means???
"The flesh profits nothing." and how many times do I have to explain it does not mean what you think it means???

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – Jesus uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Scott, you cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)
For the second time, “trogo” is never used metaphorically or spiritually in Greek.
“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) for the second time, and I got no answer from you as to how you would answer this question. I even spoon fed you the verses.

John 6:61-63 – Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.” (for the second time)

John 3:6 – Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

Scott, you cannot explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic".

Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

You cannot find a spiritual application for "sarx" (body) anywhere in the Bible. It is always literal.

I dare you to examine the context of "The flesh profits nothing."

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68T Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

What words is Peter talking about? All His words in the NT? Or the words in the context of what Jesus just said?

Where does Jesus command us to spiritually partake as the equivalent of eating His Flesh and Blood, in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine? It's not Catholics with the man made tradition of a dead eucharist.

 

[epostle1]

REFUTING THE MYTH OF THE INVISIBLE CHURCH
​

After they rejected the hierarchical Catholic Church, one of the early tasks of the protestant reformulators was to redefine what Church is; more precisely, to define the visible nature of the New Covenant community of God’s chosen people. It being clear to them through sacred Scripture that Christ Jesus actually did established a Church; they needed to define the boundaries of that Church and how it could be identified.

For Catholics, these questions had always been absolutely clear. The true Church of Christ is both universal and visible; more precisely, it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Protestants were unable to answer these questions by pointing to a visible and hierarchical church, because it would have then been impossible for them to resolve the glaring issue of that church’s disconnect from the actual Church that the Apostles established.

How they ended up resolving their issue was by innovating the theology of a juxtaposed and disassociated church. For Gottfriend Leibniz, the disassociated church was defined as the temple of God that was juxtaposed by the temple of men. For Jean Calvin, it was the company of the faithful whom God has ordained and elected to eternal life that was juxtaposed by the company of those who have not been ordained and elected. Leibniz’s temple of God and Calvin’s company of the elect are early roots of continuing Protestant rejection of one visible and hierarchical Church that Christ Jesus established through His Apostles and that the Holy Spirit has continued to preserve in truth.

One of my favorite Scriptural proofs that Christ Jesus intentionally ushered in the age of visible and hierarchy Church is found in the seventeenth Chapter of John.

The Church is a Hierarchy!

In v. 18 Jesus prays, “As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world." Who was Jesus praying for? He was praying for His Apostles (Greek: apostolos, ‘ones sent forth’). This prayer had an instant implication for those twelve men who He had chosen and ‘sent forth’, as well as future implications for all those who Christ would later choose to ‘send forth’. In the broadest and most accurate sense, Christ Jesus did not send out individuals for the sake of individuals, but it was His hierarchical Church that He sent forth for the sake of individuals; commissioning them to make disciples of all nations; Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Cf. Mt. 28:19; 2 Macc. 5:19; CCC 767-769).

The Church is Visible!

The first clue that we come upon to prove that our Lord expects for His Church to be visibly one is the word ‘world’ in v. 13. “I speak this in the world so that they may share my joy completely.” He is praying here for a tangible and visible reality in a tangible and visible world. The word world (Greek: ‘kosmos’), which is being used in the text of this prayer, means ‘the orderly arrangement, the world’. Meaning, that in this context of this prayer, our Lord was speaking of the visible world that God created, not the world (‘alon’), which refers to the Messianic age, as in “. . . the harvest at the end of the world . . .” (Cf. Mt. 13:39) – nor the world (‘oikonmene’), which is the known world of man or the world men govern (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire), as in “. . . shall be preached to the whole world . . .” (Cf. Mk. 14:9)

The next clue that Christ is praying for one Visible Church is found in His triple use of the word ‘consecrate’ in vv. 17 and 19. Consecrate (Greek hagiazo, ‘to make holy, be, purify, to venerate, hallow, sacred) is used in Scripture to denote a visible object being made Holy, and that which is Holy belongs to Him who is Holy, Holy, Holy. Some of the visible objects in which the word hagiazo is used in conjunction with are
gold (Cf. Mt. 23:17, 19),
individuals (Cf. Acts 20:32, 26:18; Jude 1),
groups of people (Cf. Rom. 15:16),
a Church (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:2),
and Old Covenant animal sacrifices (Cf. Heb. 9:13).

It is also clear from sacred Scripture that hagiazo is
(1) an operation of God the Father (Cf. Heb. 2:11);
(2) an operation of God the Son (Cf. Heb. 13:12); and
(3) an operation of the Holy Spirit through the Blood of Jesus Christ (Cf. 1 Pet. 1:2). In other words, it is the Holy Trinity, who sanctifies and guides the visible Church towards visible unity and oneness – conforming Her (the Church) to the image of Christ Jesus.

Conclusion
It is rather foolish to think that Christ Jesus gave us a definite task of taking all that He taught us into the world, and to forgive sins, but not giving us any visible organization by which to accomplish this awesome task in decency and order. The acceptance of the Catholic Church as the one visible and hierarchical Church of Christ is tied together with the chief fruit of His prayer in John 17; that our Christian unity through this Church would lead the world into believing and knowing that the Father sent us His Son. In contrast, our failure to accept the Catholic Church as the one visible and hierarchal Church of Christ is tied to every reason that the world has not to believe and know that the Father sent us His Son.
http://www.catholiclane.com/refuting-the-myth-of-the-invisible-church/

 

[epostle1]

It is not a matter "IF" Peter was given "authority" over the "other" apostles.
It is a matter of "TITLES", that Catholics "Posthumously" "ASSIGN" "TO" men, AND
"TITLES", that Catholics "ASSIGN" "TO" Living men.
"IF" your own Catholics BELIEVE and PRACTICE and PREACH what some Catholics believe IS CONTRARY to Catholicism...
I am not responsible FOR their claims.
Be a big boy, and notice the door swings both ways.
While you are hammering people are anti-Catholic, the same applies to you (ducky) being anti-Protestant.
No thanks. I do not care to waste my time on what I do not believe. NOT Scriptural to be focused on what ISN'T, rather than being focused on WHAT IS.
Already established that; It's an INDIVIDUALS prerogative to Believe what he individually chooses.
I am the one you decided to address, and tell me all about your complaints toward Protestants....that's who.
Well if you think you are a "bad Catholic", that would be your own prerogative. I havn't seen anyone else make that claim FOR YOU.
LOL...funny. Again you are a mind reader on what MOST Protestants know and understand.....and your little disparaging comment about them .... to verify your anti-Protestant perspective.
Your words....and something else, I disagree with.
WOW...
I am not a Catholic, so you think that means....anti-Catholic?
You are not a Pope, does that make you...
Anti-Pope?
Good for you, however mystics don't interest me.
YOU mean LIKE YOU? Is the following YOUR IDEA of being POLITE?
Now if you can just learn to ask polite questions, and ACTUALLY allow others to answer without you answering FOR THEM, and then adding your snarking comments, YOU MIGHT be able to have a worthy conversation.

A few issues.
1) Jesus chose disciple Jews, to continue Jesus' WORK of seeking LOST Jews.
Seems your understanding is Jesus' gave Peter AUTHORITY over the CHURCH, WHEN...
1) Christ Jesus is the Head of His Church.
2) The extent of Peter's AUTHORITY in Scripture appears some exhibited AUTHORITY "AMONGST" the Disciples.
2) How did Peter, BECOME the "HOLY FATHER", as Popes are ADDRESSED, when thee only Scriptural mention of thee "HOLY FATHER", is in regard specifically TO God?
3) WHY is a TEACHER ASSIGNED specifically TO THE JEWS, a Gentiles Posthumously, Holy Father?
4) WHY was he NOT during his lifetime THEE HOLY FATHER of the Gentiles? AND addressed as such?

If you want Peter to be the Authorative Figure OVER the other Apostles of his day....okay, maybe he was.
Nothing says Peter KNEW more, UNDERSTOOD more, than other Apostles venturing out to TEACH Jews, or that they required Peter's approval on HOW they would preach to Jews....
And WHY the Posthumous Titles and Acclamations for Peter?
It is those type of things, Protestant has the disagreement with.

Agree that men can be hypocrites, even when they are believers or Saved and born again Believers......

HOW does the infallibility of a man...then not apply TO a Catholic Pope.....when it appears Catholic Popes are declared INFALLIBLE....
How is that SO, and NOT SO, as you just mentioned.
Perhaps you could explain the Catholic take on how OPPOSITES can mean the same thing.

It is the LACK of understanding that confounds.
God IS the Rock.
That was established in the OT.
God IS Unchanging.
That was established in the OT.
Christ Jesus IS the Head of the Church.
God is the Rock.
Jesus the Chief corner stone OF the Church.
The Rock is the Foundation.
The Chief corner stone IS the FIRST stone "OF" the Foundation, to which all other stones, will be SET, in reference to THE CORNER STONE.

AND, WHAT IS THE REFERENCE, to which ALL other "stones" shall be added, IN BUILDING Christ's Church....?
Peter GAVE the Answer....
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God".
"THAT" IS THE FOUNDATION of Christ's Church. And every little stone, (ie men) who are ADDED upon THAT foundation, are partakers (participants) IN adding to Christ building HIS church, without mortar or mens hands.
And EVERY man "WHO" has heartfully come to that BELIEF....
1) DOES SO, "BY" and "THOUGH" the Power of God, as IT IS REVEALED to the Individual.
(V- 17)
2) also revealed in V-17, IS new names are prepared FOR Natural men, WHO are blessed with the understanding given them FROM God, that Jesus' Church is BUILT UPON...
The Corner stone....REFERENCE....THAT
"Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God"......IS "this rock" in V-17.
Jesus' Church is not "built" upon a human man, but rather human men BECOME the individual "parts" (the little stones) of Jesus' WHOLE Church.
And just as the Apostles were "Prepared" (aka being told by God in Heaven) and then SENT OUT TO TEACH.....
"Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God"
So also is every man, WHO receives the SAME Holy Spirit, also "prepared" to TESTIFY....of Jesus' Church, and the ROCK is God, and the Corner Stone OF the ROCK IS Christ Jesus, and EVERY man WHO trusts to believe...
"Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God".....SHALL BE a participant in BUILDING Christ's Spiritual Eternal Church.
God Bless,
Taken.

Here is a tissue:​

You're foaming at the mouth​

 

[epostle1]

↑

It is not a matter "IF" Peter was given "authority" over the "other" apostles.
It is a matter of "TITLES", that Catholics "Posthumously" "ASSIGN" "TO" men, AND
"TITLES", that Catholics "ASSIGN" "TO" Living men.

The title "bishop" is not given posthumously. The title to living people is in several places in scripture. Let me know if you can't find it.

"IF" your own Catholics BELIEVE and PRACTICE and PREACH what some Catholics believe IS CONTRARY to Catholicism...
I am not responsible FOR their claims.

The Church is not responsible for "some Catholics" who don't follow her teachings. The Church does not have a police department.

Be a big boy, and notice the door swings both ways.
While you are hammering people are anti-Catholic, the same applies to you (ducky) being anti-Protestant.

I am not anti-Protestant, and neither is the Church if you bother to read her teachings. I am anti-lies, anti-false-histories, anti-blind prejudice, anti-misrepresentations and its all in epidemic proportions on this board. Protestant IGNORANCE of Catholic teaching is commonplace, yet anti-Catholics think they know everything about the Church. It's a disease.

No thanks. I do not care to waste my time on what I do not believe. NOT Scriptural to be focused on what ISN'T, rather than being focused on WHAT IS.

In other words, "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts".
So far, you have focused on a lot of preconceived notions, misrepresentations and falsehoods.

Already established that; It's an INDIVIDUALS prerogative to Believe what he individually chooses.

Yea, it's called relativism. That's why Protestantism is so hopelessly divided. Need I remind you what Paul said about division? That's why I reject Protestantism (not Protestants). It fails Paul's test.

I am the one you decided to address, and tell me all about your complaints toward Protestants....that's who.

I only have complaints against Bible-Christian hate cults, bigots and liars. Most Protestants I have met face to face are good Christians.

Well if you think you are a "bad Catholic", that would be your own prerogative. I havn't seen anyone else make that claim FOR YOU.

Well, that's reassuring.

LOL...funny. Again you are a mind reader on what MOST Protestants know and understand.....and your little disparaging comment about them .... to verify your anti-Protestant perspective.
Your words....and something else, I disagree with.
WOW...

You guys dish it out by the truckload all day, and when you get back a teaspoon of your own medicine, you cry like babies.. "You are not very Christian...you are anti-Protestant...WHAAA WHAAA WHAAA. I use strong words because dealing with vicious anti-Catholics can be very frustrating. I know I shouldn't. I am not an apologist. I accept your exhortation and apologize if I have offended you.

I am not a Catholic, so you think that means....anti-Catholic?
You are not a Pope, does that make you...
Anti-Pope?

You are anti-Catholic when you bash the Church with lies, and refuse to be corrected. Not understanding is one thing, refusing to understand is different.

Good for you, however mystics don't interest me.
YOU mean LIKE YOU? Is the following YOUR IDEA of being POLITE?
Now if you can just learn to ask polite questions, and ACTUALLY allow others to answer without you answering FOR THEM, and then adding your snarking comments, YOU MIGHT be able to have a worthy conversation.

Like this one? It's a lot of work refuting rants.

A few issues.
1) Jesus chose disciple Jews, to continue Jesus' WORK of seeking LOST Jews.
Seems your understanding is Jesus' gave Peter AUTHORITY over the CHURCH, WHEN...
1) Christ Jesus is the Head of His Church.

Yes, Jesus is Head of His Church. That is a Catholic teaching you borrowed from us. But we don't strip Jesus of His power and authority to assign a prime minister or chief steward to run things while He is not here. Stripping Jesus of His authority to do that is a false man made tradition.

2) The extent of Peter's AUTHORITY in Scripture appears some exhibited AUTHORITY "AMONGST" the Disciples.

Scripture shows that all the apostles (disciples) had authority, but Peter had authority over all the apostles. This role of Peter is repeated all over the NT.

2) How did Peter, BECOME the "HOLY FATHER", as Popes are ADDRESSED, when thee only Scriptural mention of thee "HOLY FATHER", is in regard specifically TO God?

First, "holy" is in the Bible and it doesn't necessary have to pertain to God. Second, "father" is all over the Bible, it doesn't necessarily have to pertain to God. Put the two concepts together and you get "holy father", a biblical title. Pope means father, translated. In the first 3 centuries "pope" was applied to any bishop. The Pope is a bishop in his own diocese and he has a dual role. The Bible took 350 years to develop, but you have trouble accepting development of the papacy???

If you want Peter to be the Authorative Figure OVER the other Apostles of his day....okay, maybe he was.
Nothing says Peter KNEW more, UNDERSTOOD more, than other Apostles venturing out to TEACH Jews, or that they required Peter's approval on HOW they would preach to Jews....

The other apostles preached the same gospel, they did't need Peter's approval. But they needed Peter's leadership in Acts 15 when "there was much debate".

And WHY the Posthumous Titles and Acclamations for Peter?
It is those type of things, Protestant has the disagreement with.

Peter's authority does not rest on his knowledge or understanding. It rests on Jesus. We all know that Peter screwed up. Jesus prayed to the Father that his faith would not fail. Luke 22:31-32 We believe the Father answered Jesus' prayer. Do you? Titles like "First Among Equals", "Servant of the Servants" and so on all came in later centuries.

Agree that men can be hypocrites, even when they are believers or Saved and born again Believers......

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

HOW does the infallibility of a man...then not apply TO a Catholic Pope.....when it appears Catholic Popes are declared INFALLIBLE....

Popes are not declared infallible. In fact, no pope is infallible without the Holy Spirit. There is a list of conditions that must be met before a teaching can be infallible.
The teaching must flow from what has been divinely revealed (from Jesus to the apostles)
It must apply to the universal Church.
It must be declared from the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra)
Many other conditions. The Church makes infallible declarations on average of 1 per century, yet it still gives Protestants fits. Not everything the Church teaches is infallible.

How is that SO, and NOT SO, as you just mentioned.
Perhaps you could explain the Catholic take on how OPPOSITES can mean the same thing.

Do you have an example?

It is the LACK of understanding that confounds.
God IS the Rock.
That was established in the OT.
God IS Unchanging.
That was established in the OT.
Christ Jesus IS the Head of the Church.
God is the Rock.

Yes, God is the Rock. Catholics have no problem with that. But you are thinking in strict terms of "either/or". Does it mean Jesus was wrong to change Simon bar Jonah's name to Rock? Of course not. It's "both/and", not "either/or".

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church,
and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock,
but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

 

[Taken]

Hi Taken,
Regardless of what the pope may or may not have been trying to say in that homily, infallibillty would not apply.

Infallabilty aplies when the pope is officialy declaring some doctrine that is binding on all the faithful.

Where exactly that line is drawn, is not a settled question.

Here is an example that may clarify it for you: http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/hvinfallible.asp

Or make it more cloudy lol. As you can see

Peace!

Thank you.
Cloudy, from the Catholic Church standpoint.
Clear from Scriptural Precepts.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[ScottA]

And on the third day HE rose again! His body Glorified!
Dont you DARE say HIS flesh counts for nothing! HE sacrificed HIS flesh for you! And for the whole world!

It is your fleshy understanding that is worthless..

You don't know what you are talking about - that was not me saying, it was me quoting Jesus. If you don't want to hear it from me, hear it from Him. Either way, you have much to learn.