|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/14/2008 11:34:41 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
There was a place in the town, where they were at, called the rock(Petra).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/14/2008 11:39:17 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 727
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Right, but they can't go to that truth because their house of flashy golden cards would tumble into a heap...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/14/2008 2:02:52 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 12135
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
With the RCC have run-around rampant with foolish ideas. We have a nut like Dan Brown and things on the Discovery channel which makes the creator of everything having sex with a former prostitute having a grave by Jerusalem with the whole family buried.
Which makes God out to be one of the greatest liars of all time. But I thought that was the serpent called the Devil.
This is completely off-topic for this thread.
If you wish to discuss this, I suggest you do a search of the Books folder.
Thanks.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/14/2008 3:53:53 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
There was a place in the town, where they were at, called the rock(Petra).
If anything that merely proves the point of the Catholic Church. Not only did He name Peter "ROCK", He chose a very dramatic location with historical significance to do it. The town was located at the foot of a large rock, and from which sprang one of the springs that fed the Jordan river.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/16/2008 3:57:30 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
So why did the Aposltes, led by Peter, choose Mathias to replace Judas as the 12th Apostle. They did so because they were beginning their ministry and kept the "mystical" number 12 for a short period of time. And Peter did not choose Matthias to replace Judas, the entire church was involved and the choice was left to God. Certainly if there was any truth to the idea that Peter was a "pope" he would have made the choice.
They did not "elect" another apostle after James was killed in Acts 12 because the church was more firmly established. This is clear evidence that no such thing as successors ever existed.
quote:
Acts 1:15-26 Why was Peter the one who spoke up for the group
Acts 2:14 and gave the discouse Acts 2:14-36 and after the discourse he answered the hearers question again Acts 2:37-40. Why wouldn't he?....he was a prominent leader among the Twelve.
quote:
Paul and Barnabas don't solve a local churches problem themselves, they go to Jerusalem put if before the apostles and presbyters but after the discussion who was the one who took the floor to make the final pronouncement - Peter (Acts 15:7-12). The “problem” was put before ALL in the church(vs 6,12,13) no appeal is made to Peter and in vs 19 it is James as the president of the council who makes the decision that decrees were to be sent out by the entire church - not an encyclical by Peter. James then declares: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble them not…” Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James and all the church spoke – not just Peter.
The entire church is in agreement and sends the letters. And this was done only after it was ascertained that what was declared agreed with the written Scripture(vs 15-18). Then the entire church agreed to send letters describing "what seemed good to them"(vs 25) and to send "chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas"(vs 22).
quote:
Scripture seems to back the claim Peter was in charge. Actually, there is no evidence of your claim - quite the contrary; there is overwhelming evidence that Peter ranks with the apostles in perfect equality. All twelve were equal witnesses, all twelve were equally guided by the Holy Spirit, on this Scripture is clear.
In fact, in Acts 8:14, the apostles acted together, not one supreme over any other. Peter is sent by all. Peter doesn’t do the sending – he was sent by the others. This certainly shows he was not “in charge”.
"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:"
quote:
Why did He single him out of the Twelve and charge him with feeding His lambs, tending and feeding His sheep (John 15-17) Referring to Peter as the next shepherd of Jesus' flock. Peter had previously proudly proclaimed he loved Christ more than the other disciples and when tested failed miserably with his "three" denials of Christ. Christ is graciously allowing Peter to affirm(three times) his love publicly; and, Peter does so without his former pride. This hardly makes Peter pre-emminent in any sense. Elsewhere all are called upon to be shepherds and to feed the flock.
quote:
But why concern ourselves with very plain words in the Bible, right? Good question...here's the very words of Christ declaring to the apostles that not one apostle has power or authority over the others:
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; -Matthew 20:25:26
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/16/2008 4:02:10 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
There was a place in the town, where they were at, called the rock(Petra).
If anything that merely proves the point of the Catholic Church. Not only did He name Peter "ROCK", He chose a very dramatic location with historical significance to do it. The town was located at the foot of a large rock, and from which sprang one of the springs that fed the Jordan river.
Too bad so many ECFs disagree with the idea that Peter is the "rock"....guess that would disprove the point of the Catholic Church? Augustine, for one, insists the "rock" is Christ not Peter and that it was upon the confession of faith which Christ would build His church.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/17/2008 1:54:38 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is completely off-topic for this thread.
If you wish to discuss this, I suggest you do a search of the Books folder.
Thanks.
I didn't think I was being off the topic. The RCC thinks we need a pope. An ideal that is hard to find scriptures to back up that claim. They come up with Peter as their first pope. Yet when they need to come up with a unique history to preform that endeavor. They come up with( and I'm not trying to be cruel to them) most off the wall thoughts. As I was watching EWTN last night. The pope was on and he had a wafer in his hand and wine in the other. Which he blessed and then made a statement to the fact that with this sacrifice, he prayed that God would forgive them of their sins.
I thought, but I could be wrong. But the part of the wafer and the wine, was not what took our sins away. But the shedding of blood of Jesus on the cross was our sacrifice. I thought that part of the meal was to do in remembrance of what Jesus did on the cross. Yet Benedict thinks it's in the wafer and wine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/17/2008 2:26:17 PM
|
|
|
MichiganCatholic
Posts: 29
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
|
Mcleod,
My guess is that the Pope said the following prayer from the mass: "may the body and blood of christ bring us to life everlasting." Of course, it was Christ's death on the cross that give us life everlasting, but it was his body and blood which he sacrificed for us on that cross. Catholics believe that the eucharist (the wafer to which you refer) is the "Bread of Life" which Christ promised would give give us everlasting life. You are correct that the reception of Communion does not, in and of itself, grant eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/17/2008 10:34:59 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Too bad so many ECFs disagree with the idea that Peter is the "rock"....guess that would disprove the point of the Catholic Church? Augustine, for one, insists the "rock" is Christ not Peter and that it was upon the confession of faith which Christ would build His church.
Kelman
Too bad you continue to look at sound bites and take things out of context. But Augustine can defend himself...
"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of GOD is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat 31,33, 396 A.D
"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
Sermons 295,2, 391 A.D.
"The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D.
Peter represented the whole Church and so yes that Church/Peter was built upon Christ who is also "a rock". That is what Augustine is driving at in other discussions about Peter, but to somehow take that and now say Augustine no longer believes in the papacy is completely unwarranted and frankly deceptive.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/18/2008 4:31:56 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
Peter represented the whole Church and so yes that Church/Peter was built upon Christ who is also "a rock". That is what Augustine is driving at in other discussions about Peter, but to somehow take that and now say Augustine no longer believes in the papacy is completely unwarranted and frankly deceptive. Whoa.....talk about being deceptive...I don't want to say you make a habit of it, but.....
I never said Augustine did not believe in the papacy. I said he claimed the "rock" did not refer to Peter - exactly as many others did. Here's Augustine and a few others.
"Therefore does the Lord say, Upon this rock I will build My Church, because Peter had said : Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Upon this rock, therefore, He says, which thou hast confessed, I will build My Church. The rock was Christ, upon which foundation Peter also himself was built. For other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus" ST. AUGUSTINE : Tract. 124 in Joann. n. 5,
p. 2470, i.
"For this also, Christ our Lord permitted the first of the apostles, whose confession he had fixed as a kind of groundwork and foundation of the Church, to be shaken, and to deny ; and again raised him up, teaching us by the same two things : not to trust in ourselves, and to confirm the wavering" THEODORET : Epist. LXXVII.,JBw/aio, torn.
v. p. 1130.
"He said . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will found My Church, calling, I think, the rock, the im-movableness in the faith of the disciple. It is said also somewhere by the voice of the Psalmist, Its foundations are upon the holy mountains. Exceeding well are the holy apostles and evangelists likened to mountains, as their knowledge is established as a foundation to those after them" ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA : Oratio II.
in Isa., p. 593
"Because, as Christ the Lord was about to build His Church on Peter, that is, on the unbroken and sound doctrine of Peter and his unshaken faith, therefore, in prophetic spirit He calls him Peter" VICTOR OF ANTIOCH : In Evang. Marci,
"What, then, says Christ ? Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee . . . (n. 2), ... and I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, that is, on the faith of the confession" ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM : On Matt. xvi. n.1.
I could go on and on with various ECFs from all centuries; but, luckily for you I'm tired.
Good to see you condescend to admit Christ is "also" a rock...at least, you allow the God of the Universe some small share in your glorification of Peter ...wow! For centuries you guys must have stayed up nights figuring out how next to remove the glory of God.
The entirety of Scripture declares that Christ is the Rock - the only Rock. No, mistaking it, no centuries of quibbling over Who is the only Rock Scripture speaks of - verse after verse declares that Christ and Christ alone is the Rock - the only Rock.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. -1Corinthians 10:4
For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? -2Samuel 22:32
There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. -1Samuel 2:2
He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. -Psalm 62:2
He is the Rock...... - Deuteronomy 32:4
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/18/2008 1:49:30 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The entirety of Scripture declares that Christ is the Rock - the only Rock.
Kelman,
And that is where you make your mistake--you look at things "alone or only". The plain text of scripture clearly make Peter a rock as well--Jesus is sharing. Most Protestant scholars can't even get around the test and admit that yes, Jesus changes his name and support the Catholic position on that specific passage.
quote:
I could go on and on with various ECFs from all centuries; but, luckily for you I'm tired.
Well then they wouldn't be ECFs! Interesting you can find mostly OT references because of course everyone must have been shocked when Jesus decided to call Peter that. But anyway, that doesn't solve your Peter problem because not only does the Catholic Church embrace that view as well, it does not impact how they viewed the papacy in total, as the final authority on Church matters--ie, the same view we have today.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/18/2008 6:10:51 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 727
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Hate to say it, but we do NOT have a "Peter problem". LOL He was one of several apostles. Upon the Rock foundation of Christ was the church built.
It happens to be your organization that was built upon Peter, not my church... Mine is built upon the Lord Jesus Christ... And we follow the instructions God gave us, not those of Peter.
Again... Peter is not a problem...
You just go ahead and let the papacy have authority in all matters of your church. I'll continue to let Christ have the authority in mine.
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/18/2008 11:19:27 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
He was one of several apostles. Upon the Rock foundation of Christ was the church built.
Papa,
We agree that Christ is the foundation but to bad the bible plainly states that Peter is also the rock that Christ put in charge of the Church.
quote:
not my church... Mine is built upon the Lord Jesus Christ... And we follow the instructions God gave us, not those of Peter.
Well that kind of says it all...its "your" personal Church...what a novel idea and one not supported by the bible. What is this "church"? Do you have a bishop? Who appointed him?
You follow mens personal whims of what you think the bible teaches...nothing more.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/19/2008 2:55:51 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
The entirety of Scripture declares that Christ is the Rock - the only Rock. Kelman,
And that is where you make your mistake--you look at things "alone or only". Rather, that is the consistent, somewhat duplicitous "documentation" offered by RC as they read their preconceived theology into the writings. They pick, as you say, a "soundbite" instead of examining the entirety of an ECF's works, specifically we're speaking of Augustine here.
While Augustine declares a primacy to Peter because he was given the privilege of representing the whole church, he absolutely, categorically declares that it is Christ who is the Rock and it was upon Peter's declaration that the church would be built.
And, frankly, if Christ did not build his church on a man, and He did not, then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome. Augustine wrote that Peter is representative of the church:
"In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession." Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1
"And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." St. Augustin, Sermon XXV
"For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people"
"Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee."
"This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church" Augustin, Sermon XXVI
quote:
quote:
I could go on and on with various ECFs from all centuries; but, luckily for you I'm tired. Well then they wouldn't be ECFs! What, you think the ECFs were all in one century? ECFs encompass the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers do they not?...to the 5th or 6th century?
quote:
Interesting you can find mostly OT references.. More RC peculiarities - legitimate inspired OT isn't authoritative enough…unless, of course, it’s uninspired Apocrypha. I could have added additional verses from both testaments….but, why bother? Whether 1 or 100 inspired passages you still wouldn’t believe them.
quote:
...because of course everyone must have been shocked when Jesus decided to call Peter that. Since not one other Apostle or penman of Scripture ever alludes to Peter being the “rock” or of having any more authority than any other Apostle, we can safely say there was no “shock”.
quote:
But anyway, that doesn't solve your Peter problem because not only does the Catholic Church embrace that view as well, Nope, got no “Peter problem”; in fact, I agree with Augustine and many other ECFs that Christ is the only Rock and Peter was representative of the church.
Instead of going off on a power hungry trip, RC should have continued to embraced the view of the early church, of Augustine et al - that Peter was simply "one among equals".
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/19/2008 3:00:30 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2719
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
We agree that Christ is the foundation but to bad the bible plainly states that Peter is also the rock that Christ put in charge of the Church.
It's amazing. . . 159 pages in, and people still think there can be two rocks. . .
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/19/2008 9:27:26 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Rather, that is the consistent, somewhat duplicitous "documentation" offered by RC as they read their preconceived theology into the writings. They pick, as you say, a "soundbite" instead of examining the entirety of an ECF's works, specifically we're speaking of Augustine here.
Really the first thing you start with is the bible and you have yet to provide any counter to the numerous protestant biblical scholars already presented who actually agree that Peter in fact means rock and there is no way around the plain writing of that passage of who is being addressed.
But staying on this specific topic...Augustine had several variations if you will on the rock was, to includ Peter, Christ and the Church and depending on who he was fighting, emphasized one over the other. The most thorough answer to this issue I've found is here. To suggest that the Catholic Church hasn't examined all the writing is beyond the pale. The Catholic Church is really the only church that bothers to examine them in detail and protect them from being turned into pre-protestants.
quote:
And, frankly, if Christ did not build his church on a man, and He did not, then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome.
Well you didn't get that idea from Augustine since he fully understood the primacy of Rome and the office of the pope.
quote:
Since not one other Apostle or penman of Scripture ever alludes to Peter being the “rock” or of having any more authority than any other Apostle, we can safely say there was no “shock”
You probably can't even find scholars from you side who would support that. Peter means rock remember--the French bible uses the same word in Matt16. See is you can read this.
Power trip? Really when did that start? Maybe when Pope Clement wrote to the Corinthians and told them to obey. Oh but that was 300 yrs before Augustine.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/19/2008 11:21:55 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 678
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
We agree that Christ is the foundation but to bad the bible plainly states that Peter is also the rock that Christ put in charge of the Church.
It's amazing. . . 159 pages in, and people still think there can be two rocks. . .
I'm still perplexed that people fail to see Jesus naming Peter as "Rock"
*shrug*
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 3:33:41 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
Really the first thing you start with is the bible... Well, there you go...can't go wrong doing that.
quote:
and you have yet to provide any counter to the numerous protestant biblical scholars already presented who actually agree that Peter in fact means rock and there is no way around the plain writing of that passage of who is being addressed. Well, obviously Augustine was able to "get around it". That the obvious sense of the text requires that the rock should be something appertaining to Peter I readily grant. But the person of Peter?...no, that is NOT the obvious sense of the passage.
If you look at verse 17 we see Christ is speaking of Peter's confession....no reason to assume Christ is speaking of anything other than Peter's confession in verse 18. And, it makes a perfect correlation between the two verses.
Besides, the text contains a metaphor which tends to merge into an allegory. It's in the nature of such figures of speech to say one thing so that something else may be understood. Therefore, the last thing the text is is "plain" as you suggest.
quote:
But staying on this specific topic...Augustine had several variations if you will on the rock was, to includ Peter, Christ and the Church and depending on who he was fighting, emphasized one over the other. Actually, that's not true. What is true is he did at one point earlier in his life write the "rock" was Peter; but, later repudiated this as he agreed with the prevailing teaching - that it was the faith which Peter expressed. He believes that Peter’s primacy is figurative in that he represents the universal Church.
Even of those ECFs who wrote that the church was built upon Peter it was never to the exclusion of the other Apostles - which is precisely what Scripture teaches: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;". Therefore, the NT does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching....exactly as Matthew 16:18 says.
quote:
quote:
And, frankly, if Christ did not build his church on a man, and He did not, then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome. Well you didn't get that idea from Augustine since he fully understood the primacy of Rome and the office of the pope. Hmm, Augustine sure seems to think Peter was "one among equals":
"So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all". Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198)
quote:
quote:
Since not one other Apostle or penman of Scripture ever alludes to Peter being the “rock” or of having any more authority than any other Apostle, we can safely say there was no “shock” You probably can't even find scholars from you side who would support that. You see you got yourself a problem here. You can find no place in Scripture where Peter is given or shown to have authority above the other Apostles. What Christ gave Peter He gave to all the Apostles; and, in fact, told them none had authority over the others. We been there and every last one of your efforts was shown to be untrue. While I know I can hunt up Protestant, EOC and RC theologians who agree...why do I need to?...I've got the words of Jesus Christ.
quote:
Power trip? Really when did that start? Maybe when Pope Clement wrote to the Corinthians and told them to obey. Oh but that was 300 yrs before Augustine. This Clement might have been a bishop of Rome but he was no pope. I don't know if he told them to obey or not; but, as bishop of a very rich church he did have clout. The Roman church often contributed to the other churches.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 2:06:35 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 727
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I'm perplexed as to how people can still think Christ made Peter into something more than He actually did...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 2:29:58 PM
|
|
|
MichiganCatholic
Posts: 29
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
|
I am perplexed why this is such a big deal to non-Catholics. The United States of America has a president. General Motors has a CEO. The Catholic Church is an international organization of more than one billion people that has lasted for two thousand years. No other organization on Earth is so large, so diverse, and so old. How in the world would it operate without some central authority? You may disagree with us regarding our view about the office of the Pope and its origins, but from a practical perspective, what is so wrong with having a leader?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 3:50:31 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3106
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is so wrong with having a leader?
Absolutely nothing MC. You came somewhat later but we talked that point to death here.
My take: by all means, do have a Pope, catholic brothers! Lovely office, established, respected, spokesman for millions of Catholics, great.
Pope is already on postcards, Vatican, St Pete’s, beautiful services, cancelling the office would be like taking the Queen out of England. Already there, pretty, Pope and bishops get all dressed up, neat tradition.
The dress code –lovely, you can be 200 pounds overweight, nobody would notice, but John Hagee looks like a giant blob of fat.
Rock, shmock, that is never-ending debate, lets agree to disagree, Long Live Pope.
But:
RC would’ve done itself an great favor , and eliminate profound, well earned by their evil history anger , coming from non Catholics if they only admitted that Rome headquarters
(Popes and other top management) are just humans. Prone to mistakes. Prone to evil.
Popes over the course of the history embarrassed themselves, presented contradicting theologies disagreed with each other on theol, issues, paired with evil kings, dictators, cheated, lied, abused, blessed genocides of lesser peoples, called brethren that Christ Died For heretics and anaphemized them, blessed all kinds of inhumane acts in the last centuries shenanigans with dictator Mussolini, and freshest – covered up for those who abuse kids. Popes also done some incredibly good things.
THEY ARE HUMANS.
IF RC only renounced that infallablity thingy ! They are like Bill Clinton with his pointing finger (“ I never had..”) Yes you had, RCC! Your doctrines have been in constant changing mode!! Protestants are not better, our history is full of blood and abuse and wrong denominations, and theologies- but we admit it, we don’t claim infallibility or worse, like being one and only true church. Do we realize how childish Pope looks saying that His church is one and only?
RC thinks some people are almost God, for only God is infallible. (Yes I know diff. b/n impeccability)
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 4:12:52 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3106
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Addition:
I do realise that what i am suggesting is reformation of the current system on more democratic principles, and holding Pope responsible and establishing more control over the church by people, not entirely by corrupted headquaters.
Yes, i realise how utopian that thought is - Martin Luther clearly knew back then some smart alec jewish girl with internet access will get that idea eventually, and cut it short by saying that RC CAN NOT be reformed. I better listen to him :) with all his defects, he wasnt a dummy.
, 
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 6:29:47 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 399
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you look at verse 17 we see Christ is speaking of Peter's confession....no reason to assume Christ is speaking of anything other than Peter's confession in verse 18. And, it makes a perfect correlation between the two verses.
Kelman
Well thats a novel take on the passages. In your world of course the first problem is that Peter gets the revelation from God in the first place. In your view all the apostles should have gotten that at the same time and then all of them should have sung out together. V17 is a personal blessing and Christ recognizes that God has picked Simon and now that sets up the next verse in which Christ changes his name to Rock/Peter and then bestows only on him alone the keys, etc. in v19.
quote:
Besides, the text contains a metaphor which tends to merge into an allegory. It's in the nature of such figures of speech to say one thing so that something else may be understood. Therefore, the last thing the text is is "plain" as you suggest.
There is no metphore in v18. Peter and rock are the same words in aramaic which only has one word for rock which is Kepha (John 1:42) so He would have said, "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church." So he is not "like" a rock, he is the rock.
quote:
You see you got yourself a problem here. You can find no place in Scripture where Peter is given or shown to have authority above the other Apostles.
What do you think v19 is all about? Did the other get the keys? Did any of them get called by Christ to lead the sheep, strengthen the others and then get personal prayer from Christ saying only Peters faith would not fail?? It's as obvious as the nose you ignore.
quote:
but, as bishop of a very rich church he did have clout.
Oh really, I thought the Church was being persacuted around that time--maybe they had a really good IRA account. Or, maybe you should up on it and start with the links I provided--maybe you missed them since they put to bed your Augustine issues.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/20/2008 6:48:07 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 727
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
He was one of several apostles. Upon the Rock foundation of Christ was the church built.
Papa,
We agree that Christ is the foundation but to bad the bible plainly states that Peter is also the rock that Christ put in charge of the Church. I have already addressed this. Peter's declaration of who/what Jesus is is the Rock upon which HIS (Jesus') Church is built. The fact that someone in the history of your church chose to mis-interpret Christ's words and make Peter into something more than Christ made him, is one of the greatest untruths ever presented to the world.quote:
quote:
not my church... Mine is built upon the Lord Jesus Christ... And we follow the instructions God gave us, not those of Peter.
Well that kind of says it all...its "your" personal Church...what a novel idea and one not supported by the bible. What is this "church"? Do you have a bishop? Who appointed him?
You follow mens personal whims of what you think the bible teaches...nothing more.
Otis
Not as if it's 'my' personal church. It is the church built upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, and is therefore HIS church. I simply choose to associate myself with that one, rather than with any of the others that are built upon a different foundation: Mormon - on Joseph Smith, Islam - on Muhammad, Catholic - on Peter, Scientology - on L.Ron Hubbard, etc...
Go figure: We do have a bishop who was appointed by God, but even more important is that our bishop answers to the Shepherd (a.k.a. "The Rock" and/or Jesus Christ) not to the 'pope' (or a 'prophet' or an 'apostle' or a 'machine', etc.)
I also find it to be quite amusing that the Catholic Church has built all their doctrine upon a private (and extremely skewed) interpretation of the Bible, and yet has the audacity to say that others, who can read and comprehend scripture plainly, are devising a 'private' interpretation simply because the Catholic mis-interpretation came first? It's really quite laughable. (Except for the pitiably tragic part.) You build doctrines that don't resemble anything found in scripture, and say it's the way Christ wants it?!? Then get down on people who are following the instructions so plainly laid out in Gods Word...
And so you may stand corrected: I follow the teachings OF the Bible... NOT the whims of ANY human. It would be Catholics who do the following of unscriptural, human whims. Try reading and understanding scripture for what it says rather than what some fallible human TELLS you it means... I will assure you that it is an eye-opening page-turner! Give it a shot! (But ya have to let the Spirit of God show you what it means, as instructed within itself... not rely on an interpretation given to you by a human who obviously hasn't quite grasped it...
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/20/2008 7:10:20 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 3/21/2008 4:33:24 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5082
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
If you look at verse 17 we see Christ is speaking of Peter's confession....no reason to assume Christ is speaking of anything other than Peter's confession in verse 18. And, it makes a perfect correlation between the two verses.
Kelman
Well thats a novel take on the passages. I doubt it's novel; but, in any event it is true.
quote:
In your world of course the first problem is that Peter gets the revelation from God in the first place. LOL....my world?....ah yes, that pesky world of the Bible. Let's see if I can actually type the following words....yes, you are correct..... Peter was given this revelation from God.
Though this particular fact actually has nothing to do with what we're speaking about. In fact, if Peter, receiving a revelation of truth from God was somehow a reason for the institution of the papacy, then multiple millions the world over could be popes.
quote:
In your view all the apostles should have gotten that at the same time and then all of them should have sung out together. What, you think Peter and the other apostles didn't speak to each other....they didn't discuss everything they saw and heard from Christ? That's silly, of course, they did and they all agreed. Peter simply spoke what was believed by all of the them. Guess you think the rest of the apostles were heathens. And, btw, all revelation comes from God so Peter isn't unique in this either.
quote:
V17 is a personal blessing.... Yep, base on his confession of vs 16 which is exactly the same confession Christ is talking about in vs 17 and 18.
quote:
There is no metphore in v18. That is the goofiest remark I've yet to see on this entire forum and that's saying something. In addition, you guys sure build a mountain out of that metaphor in vs 18.
Even Peter understood that the "rock" (metaphor for Christ) is Christ which, of course he would, since he revered the entirety of Scripture:
And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: ‘Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed.’ This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone,’ and ‘A stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.’ -1Peter 2:4-8
According to Peter the stone or rock is not only a cornerstone, but a foundation and this Peter says is Christ Himself. Throughout the Bible it is always Christ whether it is the old or new testaments - the stone, the rock, the cornerstone, the rejected stone, the stone of stumbling and rock of offence.
quote:
Did the other get the keys? Yep, they did. They received the same authority in Mat 18:18 and John 20:22-23. It's plain silly to say the "keys" somehow mean the establishment of the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the church and the world. Especially silly since the keys represent the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to proclaim the gospel, declaring the forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. What grievous error to say one person "possesses" the keys when, in fact, we see Christ gives the same authority to all the Apostles.
quote:
quote:
but, as bishop of a very rich church he did have clout. Oh really, I thought the Church was being persacuted around that time--maybe they had a really good IRA account. I know only one or two erroneously interpreted biblical passages are of any value to RC and the rest get tossed. But, I would have thought you'd at least read the Clement letter you were schilling with the hope of making some point which, of course, you never made. Had you, you would have seen him speaking about monetary issues.....though, not precisely IRA accounts.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
