The Catholic Church and Authority

[mjrhealth]

It received it’s authority from Christ,

That is a lie. If one is to believe that than one would have to deny the truth, if one denies the truth than one must deny Christ for He is the truth. Jesus gave no authority to the Catholic church there is no proof, no evidence in fact every thing the catholic church has done has being at odd with Gods character, if one is to believe the catholic church is from God than one must conclude that God is a liar and a deceiver even a murderer since that is what teh character of teh catholic church is. Anyone willing to tell God He is a Liar?? or call Him a hypocrit, for at the moment that is what you are all doing...

 

[StanJ]

The Catholic Church never claims that it is the ultimate authority. It received it’s authority from Christ, who received his authority from God the Father. So the ultimate authority is the God the Father.

Let's try to be on the critical and these terms okay? The RCC is not the same as the Catholic Church. So when exactly did the RCC receive its Authority?

Yes, I there is only one Shepherd, but he has appointed the Pope to look after his sheep here on earth on his behalf.
Yes, I agree there is one Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, but he has appointed the Pope to be his vicar here on earth. The Pope is therefore head of the Church on Earth but Christ is the head of the whole Church which includes those in heaven and in purgatory.

And where exactly were these instructions given by Jesus in the New Testament? Jesus did not differentiate between the church on earth and the church in heaven because there is no church in heaven. The fact is Jesus said no man has ever seen God the Father so how exactly can there be a church in heaven. The only church that exists is the church on Earth. There's also no church in purgatory as there is no purgatory but again please feel free to show where in the Bible you see purgatory?

If you study your Bible Stan, you will read that Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18);

Jesus didn't say he would found his church in Matthew 16:18 he said that all of the confession by Peter he would build his church and he has. Every time someone confesses Jesus as Savior he/she is added to the church

He founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Paul is using metaphor in Ephesians 2:20 as well as in 1 Timothy 3:15. This Foundation that Jesus spoke about is described and Luke 6:47-49. The foundation is Jesus Christ that's Paul also teaches in 1st Corinthians 3:11

He gave that Church one set of doctrines (Jud 3). He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 16:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20). He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20). He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 17:20-23).

Jude gave the church a letter and exhortation, not a set of doctrines.
The apostles were always leaders and this didn't change after Jesus' death.
Yes he did give them the Great Commission.
He didn't leave them alone, he sent another Advocate, the Holy Spirit to be with them.
And he was with them to the End of the Age which was when he ascended to the father after his resurrection.

That is a visible institutional Church with the authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), to bind and loose (Mt 16:19 & 18:18), and to teach (Mt 28:20).

It's not a visible institution, and those that Jesus breathed on in John 20:23 were the ones that received the gift to forgive sin and cause healing. That was not transferable.

Then why is there so much disagreement about what his written word means?

Because man is imperfect and self-centered and cardinal. That's why we have consensus.

Really! And you call my questions inane. :lol:

It was indeed a name which is why I asked it to show you how I perceived yours.

And that is exactly what Protestantism has done. The result is there for all to see; over 30,000 different denominations, teachings contradictory doctrines, all claiming the Holy Spirit has led them into the truth.

There are quite a few Catholic denominations as well, don't fool yourself, but the point is not how many denominations there are. I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but within the Catholic Church there are a lot of teachings that contradict one another, and the catechism.

 

[Mungo]

But neither can you. If we do not agree on the authority of the creeds, what can we agree on? It will be impossible even to discuss the subject.

Orthodox Christianity is that which the Catholic Church teaches. There, that was easy.

What do you think sola scriptura actually means? Not that Scripture is the only authority but that it is the final authority.

That may be your version but I've heard different definitions.

You are also forgetting that the letter was accompanied by delegates from the Council who were able to explain the reasoning behind it - which most definitely did include Scripture. (Acts 15:15)

That is supposition not supported by scripture.
If you follow the actual events you will see that Peter made the argument and decision in verses 7-11. In verse 12 it says “And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” They fell silent. The decision was made. They then went on to hear the report back from Paul and Barnabus.
After that James (as the presiding bishop) then came to the practical matter of conveying the message to the Christians in Antioch.

The letter he suggested sending stated:
"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:23-29)

Judas and Silas were to tell them the same things as were in the letter and there was no scripture in the letter. There was no scripture in Peter’s argument that settled the matter.

The authority was stated: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….” Nothing about scriptural support. The apostles and elders had authority to make decisions. The brethren in Antioch accepted their decision based on their authority.

 

[Mungo]

Let's try to be on the critical and these terms okay? The RCC is not the same as the Catholic Church. So when exactly did the RCC receive its Authority?

The term Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was a term for the Catholic Church invented by English Protestants in the 16th century. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary it was a conciliatory gesture in place of the pejorative terms Romanist and Romish.

The full title is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is commonly abbreviated to Catholic Church in documents. For example the Catechism is titled “Catechism Of The Catholic Church”.

And where exactly were these instructions given by Jesus in the New Testament? Jesus did not differentiate between the church on earth and the church in heaven because there is no church in heaven. The fact is Jesus said no man has ever seen God the Father so how exactly can there be a church in heaven. The only church that exists is the church on Earth. There's also no church in purgatory as there is no purgatory but again please feel free to show where in the Bible you see purgatory?

Of course Jesus didn’t differentiate. Heaven was closed until Jesus opened by his death and Resurrection. Souls now exist in heaven and in a state that we call purgatory. And no I’m not going to turn this into a Purgatory thread. I only mentioned it for completeness.

Jesus didn't say he would found his church in Matthew 16:18 he said that all of the confession by Peter he would build his church and he has. Every time someone confesses Jesus as Savior he/she is added to the church

Right, he did say build not found. But that is the only correct point in your statement.

Paul is using metaphor in Ephesians 2:20 as well as in 1 Timothy 3:15. This Foundation that Jesus spoke about is described and Luke 6:47-49. The foundation is Jesus Christ that's Paul also teaches in 1st Corinthians 3:11

And metaphors mean something. Yes, Jesus said build a house on rock and Peter is the Rock (Kephas) that Jesus built on Mt 16;18). In Eph 2:20 Paul describes Jesus as the cornerstone. But then Paul males a habit of mixing his metaphors.

Jude gave the church a letter and exhortation, not a set of doctrines.

I didn’t say Jude gave us a set of doctrines.

The apostles were always leaders and this didn't change after Jesus' death.

Dead leaders are not much use.

Yes he did give them the Great Commission.

Which they didn’t complete in their lifetimes. Hence the need for others to continue their work.

He didn't leave them alone, he sent another Advocate, the Holy Spirit to be with them.

Yes, we agree on something. He also said he would be with them.

And he was with them to the End of the Age which was when he ascended to the father after his resurrection.

No, that is the second coming.
Considering that he was just about to ascend to the Father when he uttered those words, giving them a solemn promise he would be with them for a few more seconds would be nonsensical.

It's not a visible institution, and those that Jesus breathed on in John 20:23 were the ones that received the gift to forgive sin and cause healing. That was not transferable.

Yes it is a visible Church and the authority to forgive sins was transferable.

Because man is imperfect and self-centered and cardinal. That's why we have consensus.

What concensus? If you mean the majority opinion then that is a strange way to get to the truth.

Moreover the majority is the Catholic Church and therefore you do not accept the consensus anyway.

There are quite a few Catholic denominations as well, don't fool yourself, but the point is not how many denominations there are.

There are no denominations within the Catholic Church.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you but within the Catholic Church there are a lot of teachings that contradict one another, and the catechism.

If you mean that some individual Catholics that do not accept infallibly defined dogmas then there may be, but then can they truly be called Catholics? But there is only one set of infallibly defined dogmas in the Catholic Church. And no contradiction with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Mungo]

That is a lie. If one is to believe that than one would have to deny the truth, if one denies the truth than one must deny Christ for He is the truth. Jesus gave no authority to the Catholic church there is no proof, no evidence in fact every thing the catholic church has done has being at odd with Gods character, if one is to believe the catholic church is from God than one must conclude that God is a liar and a deceiver even a murderer since that is what teh character of teh catholic church is. Anyone willing to tell God He is a Liar?? or call Him a hypocrit, for at the moment that is what you are all doing...

Do you feel better after that rant?

Would you care to justify any of those statements?

 

[Deborah_]

Orthodox Christianity is that which the Catholic Church teaches. There, that was easy.

I see. The problem is not that I can't define Christianity but that my definition isn't the 'right' one. I don't think we are going to get any further on this.

That may be your version but I've heard different definitions.

So have I. However, at least you know where I'm not coming from...

If you follow the actual events you will see that Peter made the argument and decision in verses 7-11. In verse 12 it says “And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” They fell silent. The decision was made. They then went on to hear the report back from Paul and Barnabus.
After that James (as the presiding bishop) then came to the practical matter of conveying the message to the Christians in Antioch.

The letter he suggested sending stated:
"The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:23-29)

Judas and Silas were to tell them the same things as were in the letter and there was no scripture in the letter. There was no scripture in Peter’s argument that settled the matter.

So all they did was to repeat exactly what was in the letter, like parrots? I find that very hard to believe.

It's not as if the deliberations of the Council were secret. Luke was told about them, otherwise they would not have been included in the book of Acts.

In any case, the basis for sola scriptura is that the Scriptures contain the most direct apostolic teaching. The church in Antioch had direct access to the apostles, so their experience doesn't set a pattern for us in this respect.

 

[Mungo]

I see. The problem is not that I can't define Christianity but that my definition isn't the 'right' one. I don't think we are going to get any further on this.

You started the issue of defining Christianity when you claimed that your opinions on your web site were 'within the bounds of orthodox Christianity' but were then unable to define what orthodox Christianity was.

I only responded to your request from my definition.

"So all they did was to repeat exactly what was in the letter, like parrots? I find that very hard to believe."

Hmm! You say sola scriptura means that scripture is the final authority, but then prefer your own speculation.

You also missed out the point that the decision was made before any scripture was quoted.

It's not as if the deliberations of the Council were secret. Luke was told about them, otherwise they would not have been included in the book of Acts.

So Luke was told about them! That sounds very much like the passing on of Tradition.

In any case, the basis for sola scriptura is that the Scriptures contain the most direct apostolic teaching. The church in Antioch had direct access to the apostles, so their experience doesn't set a pattern for us in this respect.

So we can draw no conclusions from scripure that may be applicable to us because was all different then?

 

[StanJ]

The term Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was a term for the Catholic Church invented by English Protestants in the 16th century. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary it was a conciliatory gesture in place of the pejorative terms Romanist and Romish.

I'm pretty sure it started way before that when Rome and Constantinople we're vying for control. Also, another reason the term Roman is applied has to do with the Roman Rite that RCC uses in the West, who's official title is 'The Latin (Western) Catholic Church'. The name Protestant, was a work of The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, well before Roman Catholic was commonly coined.

The full title is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is commonly abbreviated to Catholic Church in documents. For example the Catechism is titled “Catechism Of The Catholic Church”.

Within the Catholic church this is not surprising in my opinion but as I use it to identify the fact that I was born and raised into, I don't need to use its official title.

Of course Jesus didn’t differentiate. Heaven was closed until Jesus opened by his death and Resurrection. Souls now exist in heaven and in a state that we call purgatory. And no I’m not going to turn this into a Purgatory thread. I only mentioned it for completeness.

True believing Christians don't die and go to heaven because Jesus said no man has ever seen God but he also said to the thief on the cross that today you will be with me in Paradise so that is where believers Souls exist today, in Paradise. All unbelievers go to hell which will eventually be thrown into the Lake of Fire for eternity.

Right, he did say build not found. But that is the only correct point in your statement.

And totally changes the impetus of your assertion.

And metaphors mean something. Yes, Jesus said build a house on rock and Peter is the Rock (Kephas) that Jesus built on Mt 16;18). In Eph 2:20 Paul describes Jesus as the cornerstone. But then Paul males a habit of mixing his metaphors.

Yes they do, in the way they were intended, not in a literal way. Peter was not the Rock the Jesus referred to, his testimony or confession was the underpinning the provided salvation. That confession is how people become believers and part of the church. It is the base the Christian lifestyle is built on and that is what Jesus referred to. Not Peter is a man but Peter's confession of who Jesus was as we all must do in order to be saved and part of the church.

I didn’t say Jude gave us a set of doctrines.

You said, "He gave that Church one set of doctrines (Jud 3)."

Dead leaders are not much use.

That's very true, but how does that address what you said and what I responded to?

Which they didn’t complete in their lifetimes. Hence the need for others to continue their work.

We're all supposed to continue that work, but that doesn't make us all apostles. We are all called to spread the good news but that doesn't make everybody in Apostle either.

Yes, we agree on something. He also said he would be with them.
No, that is the second coming.
Considering that he was just about to ascend to the Father when he uttered those words, giving them a solemn promise he would be with them for a few more seconds would be nonsensical.

And he is, as the Holy Spirit. Remember we serve a Triune God.

Yes it is a visible Church and the authority to forgive sins was transferable.

You miss the point that Jesus was making here. On many occasions he heal people and when he did he said go and sin no more. That healing was a way of forgiving whatever causes them to be sick in the first place. That is the authority that he gave his apostles. You was not transferable but under the New Covenant we are given Gifts of healing by the Holy Spirit. Nobody is giving power to forgive sins and indeed nobody is given authority to be a mediator other than Jesus.

What concensus? If you mean the majority opinion then that is a strange way to get to the truth.

I'm pretty sure you know what consensus means, improper hermeneutical exegesis is not a strange way to get to the truth it is the only way to get to the truth. When it's based on the word of God and not man-made traditions it is the only way to get to the truth. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:1, 2 Cor 11:4.

Moreover the majority is the Catholic Church and therefore you do not accept the consensus anyway.

The majority of the Catholic church is in South America and I'm fairly sure that very few of them delve into the word of God with any understanding.

There are no denominations within the Catholic Church.

Not true.
1. Armenian (Eastern-rite Catholic)
2. Bulgarian (Byzantine rite)
3. Byzantine-rite (jurisdiction for more than one ethnic group)
4. Chaldean (Eastern Syrian rile)
5. Coptic (Alexandrian rite)
6. Ethmpic, Alexandrian rite)
7. Greek (Byzantine rite)
8. Hungarian (Byzantine rite)
9. Italo-Albanian (Byzantine rile)
10. Jurisdiction for both Latin-rite and Eastern-rite Catholics
11. Latin-roe Catholic
12. Malankara (Syro-Antiochian Eastern Syrian), Syro-Malankarese
13. Maronite (Syro-Antiochian, Western Syrian)
14. Melkite (Byzantine, Greek Catholic; Arabic-speaking)
15. Oriental (Jurisdiction for several Eastern rites)
16. Ian Byzantine rite
17. Russian (Byzantine rite)
18. Ruthenian (Byzantine rite)
19. Slovak (Byzantine rite)
20. Syro-Malabarese (Eastern Syrian)
21. Syrian, Syriac-speaking (Syro-Antiochian West Syrian)
22. Ukrainian Byzantine rite

If you mean that some individual Catholics that do not accept infallibly defined dogmas then there may be, but then can they truly be called Catholics?
But there is only one set of infallibly defined dogmas in the Catholic Church. And no contradiction with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Well that would be up to the RCC but as far as Christianity is concerned yes this agreement with any Doctrine does not mean they are not Christian. My son-in-law is Catholic and he definitely doesn't agree with everything that goes on in the Roman Catholic Church. For the most part he attends my local Pentecostal congregation.
Yes I know, and you can find it here; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[StanJ]

Orthodox Christianity is that which the Catholic Church teaches. There, that was easy.

Easy, but inaccurate and I'm sure the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches, just to name a couple, would highly disagree.

 

[mjrhealth]

Do you feel better after that rant?

Would you care to justify any of those statements?

Rant, when was the truth ever a rant. You cannot provide a single bit of proof to prove that Christ gave your church any authority, yet we can provide you with plenty of proof why it is not.But than some do put the devil and God in the same basket. Now are you ready to start twisting words to make them fit, you know the sqaure peg in the round hole, are you ready to stand here with God looking over you shoulder and associate Him with murder. lies and other works of the devil, if you are go right ahead. You can than explain to Him why it is so.

 

[Mungo]

Sigh! Can I be bothered to go through all this mess that you have posted. I will but then I'll leave it there (I'm going away for a few days soon anyway).

I'm pretty sure it started way before that when Rome and Constantinople we're vying for control.

Ah well if you are pretty sure it must be true , even without a shred of evidence such as ancient documents using the term.

Also, another reason the term Roman is applied has to do with the Roman Rite that RCC uses in the West, who's official title is 'The Latin (Western) Catholic Church'.

No, the RCC doesn’t use the word Roman in the West. The Catholic Church has a Latin (or Roman) Rite that is used all over the world.

Within the Catholic church this is not surprising in my opinion but as I use it to identify the fact that I was born and raised into, I don't need to use its official title.

Why cannot you use the title that the Church uses for itself (Catholic Church)?
Can I invent a term for you?

True believing Christians don't die and go to heaven because Jesus said no man has ever seen God but he also said to the thief on the cross that today you will be with me in Paradise so that is where believers Souls exist today, in Paradise. All unbelievers go to hell which will eventually be thrown into the Lake of Fire for eternity.

You see what unbilical beliefs you start to adopt once you leave the Catholic Church.

And totally changes the impetus of your assertion.

Not really, but I’m sure you would like to think so.

Yes they do, in the way they were intended, not in a literal way. Peter was not the Rock the Jesus referred to, his testimony or confession was the underpinning the provided salvation. That confession is how people become believers and part of the church. It is the base the Christian lifestyle is built on and that is what Jesus referred to. Not Peter is a man but Peter's confession of who Jesus was as we all must do in order to be saved and part of the church.

Peter was the Rock on which Christ said he would build his Church. That is why Jesus renamed him Rock (Jn 1:42). He renamed Simon as Kephas (which is Aramaic for a rock – a big one). Paul refers to Peter as kephas in 1Cor 15:5, Gal 1:18 & 2:9)

You said, "He gave that Church one set of doctrines (Jud 3)."

“He” is Jesus. Jude 3 is a reference to Jesus having given his Church one set of doctrines.
“Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3).

We're all supposed to continue that work, but that doesn't make us all apostles. We are all called to spread the good news but that doesn't make everybody in Apostle either.

Jesus gave specific command and authority to the Apostles that he didn’t give to ordinary disciples.

And he is, as the Holy Spirit. Remember we serve a Triune God.

Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, said he would be with his Church always. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is not the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.

As the Athansian Creed says:
“P: Now this is the Catholic faith: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity;
All: Neither confusing the Persons one with the other, nor making a distinction in their nature.”
See what happens when you leave the Catholic faith? You enter confusion.

You miss the point that Jesus was making here. On many occasions he heal people and when he did he said go and sin no more. That healing was a way of forgiving whatever causes them to be sick in the first place. That is the authority that he gave his apostles. You was not transferable but under the New Covenant we are given Gifts of healing by the Holy Spirit. Nobody is giving power to forgive sins and indeed nobody is given authority to be a mediator other than Jesus.

Forgiving sins is a separate event to physical healing. The may occur together and they may occur separately. The Holy Spirit may give gifts of healing but that is separate from forgiving sins.

But Jesus was very clear in what he said to the Apostles.
“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (Jn 20:23). Nothing about physical healing

I'm pretty sure you know what consensus means, improper hermeneutical exegesis is not a strange way to get to the truth it is the only way to get to the truth. When it's based on the word of God and not man-made traditions it is the only way to get to the truth. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:1, 2 Cor 11:4.

Did you mean - “improper” hermeneutical exegesis is not a strange way to get to the truth it is the only way to get to the truth.? Because if so it’s a weird statement.

The majority of the Catholic church is in South America and I'm fairly sure that very few of them delve into the word of God with any understanding.

The majority of Christians for most of Church history had no personal access to the Bible.
For that you need:
1. The moveable type printing press
2. Cheap paper
3. A literate population
4. A stable language.

The invention of the moveable type printing press is attributed to Gutenberg at around 1450. His first book off the press in 1455 was a Bible. The cost was almost a years wages for a master craftsman (in paper – 2 years wages for the parchment version).

However for cheap books you need more than just a printing press. You need cheap paper, produced in commercial quantities.

The first paper mill north of the alps was not built until 1390. The first commercially successful paper mill in England was built by John Spilman in Dartford in 1588.

We’ve probably had a literate population in West for only about 100 – 150 years.

And English (for example) wasn’t a stable language until at least the end of the 15th century. There were Bibles produced but not many could either afford them or read them.

That is why Jesus set up a visible Church with an organisation and a hierarchy that could preserve and teach the truth through the centuries.

Not true.
1. Armenian (Eastern-rite Catholic)
2. Bulgarian (Byzantine rite)
3. Byzantine-rite (jurisdiction for more than one ethnic group)
4. Chaldean (Eastern Syrian rile)
5. Coptic (Alexandrian rite)
6. Ethmpic, Alexandrian rite)
7. Greek (Byzantine rite)
8. Hungarian (Byzantine rite)
9. Italo-Albanian (Byzantine rile)
10. Jurisdiction for both Latin-rite and Eastern-rite Catholics
11. Latin-roe Catholic
12. Malankara (Syro-Antiochian Eastern Syrian), Syro-Malankarese
13. Maronite (Syro-Antiochian, Western Syrian)
14. Melkite (Byzantine, Greek Catholic; Arabic-speaking)
15. Oriental (Jurisdiction for several Eastern rites)
16. Ian Byzantine rite
17. Russian (Byzantine rite)
18. Ruthenian (Byzantine rite)
19. Slovak (Byzantine rite)
20. Syro-Malabarese (Eastern Syrian)
21. Syrian, Syriac-speaking (Syro-Antiochian West Syrian)
22. Ukrainian Byzantine rite

They are not separate denominations. They are different Rites (liturgical practices) within the one Catholic Church. All teach the same doctrines. All are in communion with the Pope. All the bishops attend General Church Councils (such as Vatican II) as voting participants.

God bless

Mungo

 

[Mungo]

Rant, when was the truth ever a rant. You cannot provide a single bit of proof to prove that Christ gave your church any authority, yet we can provide you with plenty of proof why it is not.But than some do put the devil and God in the same basket. Now are you ready to start twisting words to make them fit, you know the sqaure peg in the round hole, are you ready to stand here with God looking over you shoulder and associate Him with murder. lies and other works of the devil, if you are go right ahead. You can than explain to Him why it is so.

You need to calm down and get a grip on yourself. These sort of rants will do your blood presure no good.

I note you did not take up my suggestion to justify your statements.

 

[mjrhealth]

You need to calm down and get a grip on yourself. These sort of rants will do your blood presure no good.

I note you did not take up my suggestion to justify your statements.

I am not the one who needs to Justify a lie, neither are we the ones that are calling God a Liar, a murderer a hypocrit, a child molester a thief, all things your "religion" church is guilty of, as far as evidence is concerned seems that you dont belive it anyway, no matter how many times it is presented to you. Lets take this lie of yours and present a truth

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

What was Jesus speaking of "revelation"

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So what is He building His church on "REVELATION", something that so few christians get because they dont have any faith or confidence in God neither do they believe Him, and so your whole religion is based on a lie straight from the devil for He is a liar and the farther of them, just as Jesus said.And also as He said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, or again as it is written

is Christ divided.

Good thing Jesus came full of grace without it weed all be doomed.

 

[Mungo]

I am not the one who needs to Justify a lie, neither are we the ones that are calling God a Liar, a murderer a hypocrit, a child molester a thief, all things your "religion" church is guilty of, as far as evidence is concerned seems that you dont belive it anyway, no matter how many times it is presented to you. Lets take this lie of yours and present a truth

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

What was Jesus speaking of "revelation"

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So what is He building His church on "REVELATION", something that so few christians get because they dont have any faith or confidence in God neither do they believe Him, and so your whole religion is based on a lie straight from the devil for He is a liar and the farther of them, just as Jesus said.And also as He said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, or again as it is written

is Christ divided.

Good thing Jesus came full of grace without it weed all be doomed.

Let's look at this without all the insults and hyperbole.

In the first chapter of John’s gospel we read of Jesus’ first meeting with Peter. At that point Peter is called Simon. Jesus says to Peter (vs 42)
"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means [SIZE=12pt][or translates as][/SIZE] Peter)

Renaming someone is always significant in the Bible. Kephas (Greek Cephas) is Aramaic for Rock (a big one)

We come to the significance of this new name in Mt chapter 16:13-18

We need to analyse this verse by verse.
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit.

14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." The apostles give various answers to his question.
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" A direct question to them. Only one person answers him.

16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter who replies and defines who Jesus is, a definition we still use today.

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Jesus commends Peter for his answer and blesses him. Note that Peter is the only one to reply and as a direct revelation from the Father.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Now Jesus continues to address Peter and in return defines who Peter is. He is Rock, and furthermore the rock on which Jesus will build his Church. And he also gives Peter uniquely the keys of the kingdom (which represents authority) and the power to bind and loose.

So why Caesarea Philippi?

Would you like to know?

Or would that be all lies and deceit?

 

[TopherNelson]

My first question for Catholics is this: How can you be so sure that Peter is the first pope?
Clearly, if Peter isn't the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the catholic church won't have any authority what so ever.

Matthew 16:17-19
And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah,[a] you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock[c] I will build My church, and the forces[d] of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound[e] in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed[f] in heaven.”

Peter is called Cephas because to Him the Father had reveal who Jesus is. The rock is the gospel of Jesus and His words and commandments. The keys of the kingdom of heaven doesn't refer to authority, it refer to the true gospel as the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Mungo]

My first question for Catholics is this: How can you be so sure that Peter is the first pope?
Clearly, if Peter isn't the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the catholic church won't have any authority what so ever.

Matthew 16:17-19
And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah,[a] you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock[c] I will build My church, and the forces[d] of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound[e] in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed[f] in heaven.”

Peter is called Cephas because to Him the Father had reveal who Jesus is. The rock is the gospel of Jesus and His words and commandments. The keys of the kingdom of heaven doesn't refer to authority, it refer to the true gospel as the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Phew- that is asking a lot and as I said to StanJ I'm shortly going away for a few days but I'll make a start.

I'll do this in reverse order:

Matthew 16:17-19
And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah,[a] you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock[c] I will build My church, and the forces[d] of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound[e] in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed[f] in heaven.”

Peter is called Cephas because to Him the Father had reveal who Jesus is. The rock is the gospel of Jesus and His words and commandments. The keys of the kingdom of heaven doesn't refer to authority, it refer to the true gospel as the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Peter is called Kephas because that is what Jesus renamed Simon. Renaming is always important and the name tells us something about the persons new role.

Simon is renamed, in Aramaic which is what Jesus spoke, as Kephas which means Rock - a big one. So Peter is to be a Rock. I've covered this in my previous post so there is no need to repeat it all.

The keys are not the gospel. Where does the Bible say that?

After telling Peter that he (Jesus) was going to build his church on Peter, and thereby making him the leader and Jesus’ representative on earth (Mt 16:17-18) he continues in the next verse to declare Peter’s authority.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

To understand the significance of the keys we need to start in Revelation.
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
“The words of the holy one, the true one,
who has the key of David,
who opens and no one shall shut,
who shuts and no one opens.”
(Rev 3:7)

This Jesus who holds the key of David, who opens and closes is the same Jesus who says to Peter:

“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This passage was addressed to Peter and the passage needs to be interpreted with an understanding of a 1st century Jew.

Prior to this Jesus has asked the apostles who he is. Peter has replied that he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He would understand that Jesus was the promised one who would sit on the throne of David (see Lk 1:32), the promised Davidic King who would rule for ever. All through Matthew’s gospel Jesus is referring to the kingdom. And Peter with his new revelation from the Father would understand this.

Therefore when Jesus gives Peter the keys we have to look at the symbolism of that in terms of Davidic kings.

The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,
and will commit your authority to his hand;
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David;
he shall open, and none shall shut;
and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place,
and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.


Note the three lines I have emboldened which parallel verse 19 and Rev 3:7. Peter is being installed as the new master of the palace, the chief official in the kingdom under the king (Jesus).

The master of the Palace was the highest official in the land.

What does scripture say about such a person:

2. He will be a father to the inhabitants
4. He will be clothed with a robe
6. He will be girded with a girdle [or sash]
8. He will be given keys and authority.

The Pope (father) has a robe, a sash and keys as the symbols of his authority and sits on a throne.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that the churches are seven...

Ephesus - Messianic - The Apostle Peter was the apostle to the circumcision.
Smyrna - Gentile - The Apostle Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcision.
Pergamos - Orthodox... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholic - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestant - A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Materialistic - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

So there are issues with all of them.

 

[Mungo]

I believe that the churches are seven...

Ephesus - Messianic - The Apostle Peter was the apostle to the circumcision.
Smyrna - Gentile - The Apostle Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcision.
Pergamos - Orthodox... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholic - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestant - A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Materialistic - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

So there are issues with all of them.

You've done all that in the "I hate most Catholics" thread. Please don't divert this one with your ramblings that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church and Authority.

Thank you.

 

[StanJ]

@Mungo

You'll have to fix post 71 before I can reply to it properly. You seem to have missed a quote mark or two.

 

[StanJ]

You need to calm down and get a grip on yourself. These sort of rants will do your blood presure no good.
I note you did not take up my suggestion to justify your statements.

I just put him back on ignore because sometimes he gets very incohesive and incoherent.