Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[MamaZ]

Wow because they are in Communion with a man? How is this suppose to mean anything? For all those who are united to Christ and United to Him not through Man but through the Holy Spirit who not only unites us to Christ but to the Father Himself..

 

[MrPolo]

Wow because they are in Communion with a man? How is this suppose to mean anything? For all those who are united to Christ and United to Him not through Man but through the Holy Spirit who not only unites us to Christ but to the Father Himself..

Do you follow Christ or do you follow Matthew and Luke? Christ or men?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow because they are in Communion with a man? How is this suppose to mean anything? For all those who are united to Christ and United to Him not through Man but through the Holy Spirit who not only unites us to Christ but to the Father Himself..

The Orthodox only have one Man over them, the Man Jesus the Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

The body of Christ was not all in communion with Peter in the scriptures as we can see and read in the scriptures. We do not see Peter ruling or governing the church in a certain Spot as we do now through out the RCC assembly. This is something that has evolved from the time of the Apostles examples in the written account..

 

[MamaZ]

Do you follow Christ or do you follow Matthew and Luke? Christ or men?

Did Christ follow a man?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Did Christ follow a man?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ withdraws from this thread for awhile........

 

[Joachim]

OK, let us analyze this and see if we can come up with some logical conclusions therein.


quote=MamaZ;51568834]Because Peter means Stone and we see Peter showing us what Jesus taught Him..
1Pe 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
1Pe 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
1Pe 2:3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
1Pe 2:4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
1Pe 2:5 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.


1Pe 2:6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."


Behold I lay in Zion a stone, the corner stone, and HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.


Now, let's just do a textual analysis on this. He names Peter the corner stone and then follows the line "HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED"

Now, what this seems to say is, Jesus has designated Peter as the cornerstone and that if people followed the guidance of Peter as it relates to Jesus then they shall not be disappointed

1Pe 2:7 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,"

The precious value referred to here. Once again, Peter is established as the cornerstone. Even assigns a precious value in following the guidance of Peter as it relates to following Jesus further giving proof to the fact of Peter's charge from Jesus

1Pe 2:8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Yes they are being disobedient to the word, and by the verses already quoted here, the conduit of the word and future instructions is the corner stone, which recieves the message from the savior

1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1Pe 2:10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.
[/quote]



I think I have made my point in a salient manner

 

[Joachim]

Edit to add: I wanted to quote the above for future reference and response. As I suspected, the RCs are here to tell us non-RCs how much error and how ignorant we are.

I just wanted to quote the above for future reference and response given the number of times that non-Catholics proceed to tell us Catholics that we're wrong.

 

[MamaZ]

OK, let us analyze this and see if we can come up with some logical conclusions therein.


quote=MamaZ;51568834]Because Peter means Stone and we see Peter showing us what Jesus taught Him..
1Pe 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
1Pe 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
1Pe 2:3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
1Pe 2:4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
1Pe 2:5 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.


1Pe 2:6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."


Behold I lay in Zion a stone, the corner stone, and HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.


Now, let's just do a textual analysis on this. He names Peter the corner stone and then follows the line "HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED"

Did you mean to say named Peter the cornerstone? For there is only one cornerstone and it is not Peter but Christ.. Peter was saying Jesus was the cornerstone not himself..

Now, what this seems to say is, Jesus has designated Peter as the cornerstone and that if people followed the guidance of Peter as it relates to Jesus then they shall not be disappointed


Jesus did not name Peter the cornerstone..

1Pe 2:7 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,"

This would not be Peter but Christ.

The precious value referred to here. Once again, Peter is established as the cornerstone. Even assigns a precious value in following the guidance of Peter as it relates to following Jesus further giving proof to the fact of Peter's charge from Jesus

1Pe 2:8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Yes they are being disobedient to the word, and by the verses already quoted here, the conduit of the word and future instructions is the corner stone, which recieves the message from the savior

1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1Pe 2:10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

I think I have made my point in a salient manner[/quote] Peter is not nor has ever been the chief cornerstone LOL... So your point is made in error..

 

[MamaZ]

I just wanted to quote the above for future reference and response given the number of times that non-Catholics proceed to tell us Catholics that we're wrong.

wrong about what? Like Peter being the chief cornerstone?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

We're in agreement here, my brother...

Yes, Jesus founded His church.
Yes, it is His Body.
Yes, Paul was persecuting such.

Here's where we part company: I think that the Church is Christian. And Christians are people. Thus, the Church is people.

But just as the Church we see in the NT likewise had this mystical element, so too it had a visible, organizational, hierarchical, structure to it. It was not just a bunch of individual believers who started their own churches, sects, denominations each with its own distinct beliefs - but all still calling themselves "Christian." Those who did that were considered heretics and/or schismatics from the one single Church founded by Christ on the Apostles.

So the Church in the NT - in its fullest expression of it - had both aspects: a mystical invisible Church of all baptized believers, and a visible UNIFIED hierarchical institution that served as a shepherd to the flock of believers.

... as far as I know from history or Scripture, there was no institutional denomination (RCC or otherwise) for some 300 years. But, yes, there was the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of all believers. The union was (and is) one of faith in Christ (add, if you like, blessed by Baptism), not because all were formally registered in congregations legally associated with a single denomination (by any name). Yes, we were (and still are) under the one Shepherd - Jesus Christ, who is, was and always will be Lord of the Church.

... interesting how all discussions with Catholics very quickly boil down to the RCC's claims for the RCC....

Paul was persecuting PEOPLE - Christian people.

Christian people are - collectively - the church catholic.
Which is His Body, His Church.

Yes - but again there was not division, sectarianism, or denominationalism either.

... thanks for taking the Protestant position. But, I'm at a loss to know how it strengthens your arguement about the Catholic denomination and it's Pope. Lost me, my respected friend....

This is why we Catholics say that you non-Catholic Christians are still part of the universal Church, but only imperfectly. It's like you have one foot in and one foot out of the fullness of what the Church really is (which is both mystical and institutional - and united as One since Jesus founded ONE Church - not lots of churches or lots of sects each believing different and contradictory things).

... ah, now you're back to the RCC position.

And yes, the RCC is one of those 35,000 denominations some Catholics like to claim exists, and yes it agrees with only one: itself. The WORSE that can be said of any of the other 34,999 is that its as "bad" in this regard as the RCC is. But, I'm losing you, my respected friend. How does this notation that the RCC is an institutional sect/denomination that is in unity with only itself alone, contradicting all others, support your position? The issue here is the RCC bishop for it's diocese in Rome, Italy. Whom it (and it alone) regards as infallible, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. - and authoritative not only for the RCC members in Rome or even for all members of the CC but for the "entire universal church." Why does it support the claim of the RCC alone for RCC alone that none other than the RCC claims such for such (although a few claim pretty much the same things for themselves)? I'm not following you (sorry)....

I don't equate this with your denomination or mine. Or any other.
I don't equate it with me, myself, alone.
As Protestants are fond of saying, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE"

It's interesting you would say that. Protestantism seems to me far more "me and Jesus" in many ways than Catholicism is. The primacy of self within Protestantism is staggering at times. If you don't personally agree with a given church you attend, you either "church shop" or split off and start your own denomination. Doctrines like sola Scriptura are heavily slanted toward personal interpretation over and above submiting to an authoritative teacher, like we see in Catholicism. It's funny but I never once said "Jesus and we" in my 40 years as a Protestant. As I Catholic I say it every day.

LOL, sorry, now I'm ENTIRELY lost, lol.....

1. "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE" is a very common, often stated Protestant proverb. It's a point of huge emphasis, probably more in Lutheranism than in my childhood Protestant roots. But the absolutely STUNNING thing to anyone who reads the Catechism (as I've studied, all 2,865 points of it, lol) and attends the Catholic Church is the extreme obsession (okay, my adjective) that IT has with ITself. Over and over and over the Catechism goes on and on and on about itself. My priest (whom I loved and admired) was, sadly, not a good preacher. But sermons often were just commericals for the Catholic Chruch. Catholic this, Catholic that. You know, you could attend my church for a year and not hear the word "Lutheran" from the pulpit - and very possibly anywhere else. I have two Catechisms here, right at hand: My Catholic one (all marked up from instructions form my Catholic teachers) and my Lutheran one. The Catholic one goes on for 800 pages - much of it about itself. "Church" (capitol "C") means itself, probably 90% of the time. Catholic this, Catholic that. Then my Lutheran one. The word "Lutheran" never appears once in it. Nothing about ANY denominations at all. Nothing about any denomination being infallible/unaccountable, no claims, no discussions of self at all. The contrast is simply STUNNING. In any comparison of Protestantism (at least the forms known to me) and Catholicism.

2. There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

3. No denomination known to me insists on private, individual interpretation more strongly or more radically than does the RCC. The LDS once did but has backed WAY off from that, leaving the RCC pretty much in a category all it's own. The words of CCC 85 (memorized!) ring in my hears just now; all of it, including the last sentence of it (lest anyone get the church catholic confused with the Catholic denomination).

4. Friend, as a Protestant, I'm the one holding to the church catholic being US - together, all the billions of us (including those now in heaven) - reaching across the continents and centuries. It's Jesus and WE. IMHO, the RCC stresses the Jesus and ME more than any denomination known to me (again, the LDS is probably a distant second there). But we are seriously digressing....

I embrace that the church is (was and always will be) one, holy, catholic, NOT because there is a denomination with its HQ in Rome but because faith unites us as brothers and sisters in Christ, as the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. The church is not an IT, the church is US.

Luckily for us, there is no "denomination" with a HQ in Rome (unless it is Protestant). Notice, though, how you put this in the context of an either/or dichotomy. To you, the equation is that the Church is EITHER an "it" (which you inaccurately portray as our view) OR the Church is "us" (which you claim for your own position). This is a false dichotomy, Josiah. We believe it is a both/and. The Church is BOTH visible AND invisible. It is mystical and institutional. The Church in the NT was thus characterized - why would we believe that this should have changed particularly when the Bible speaks out so strongly against division and sectarianism? The division within modern Christianity is our greatest scandal and one reason why so many people in the world remain unconverted.

... IMHO, your statement here (while well articulating the Catholic position) is a contradiction. You cannot say the church is us - but it's exclusively ME, the church is not an institution but it is. Nor can one say that all other intercongregational associations are denominations but the RCC isn't: it's exactly like all the others, has exactly the same characteristics, meets exactly the same definition, but the RCC isn't what they are. Sorry....

It may be that our lack of administrative and doctrinal agreement is "scandalist." A different topic for another day and thread. But, I remind you, the RCC is in agreement with only ONE and only ONE: Itself. The WORSE that can be said of the other 34,999 denominations is that they are just as bad as the RCC in that regard, that they TOO are in agreement only with self alone. But actually, most Protestant denominations are not as bad as that. Several ARE in formal doctrinal agreement vis-a-vis confessions (Lutheran Book of Concord, for example) but may not be in agreement in OTHER areas. But again, the WORSE that can be said of any of the other 34,999 is that they are as "bad" as the RCC is in this regard: in unity ONLY with self. Alone.

Now, how does that reality support that the RCC bishop of the RCC diocese in Rome is all he claims he is? How does it support that he has all this lordship over the "entire universal church?" "Infallible?" I think I'm not following you....

We tend to see the church as Christians - spread out over all the continents and centuries. I'm a part, you're a part, St. Augustine is a part, Martin Luther is a part, Joseph Ratzinger is a part - all by virtue of the Holy Spirit making us so by the gift of faith (you might say by virtue of Baptism - and I'd have no argument there)......

As I've mentioned to you a couple of times, in Catholicism, everything seems to come down to it's ecclesiology - that IT, in some special, unique, institutional and physical sense, is THE Church.

That simply isn't true. Yes, our ecclesiology is an essential part of how we view the formal visible institutional aspect of the Church, but we also recognize that the mystical Church of all believers transcends ecclesiology - and it is just as valid and a part of "the Church" as the visible institutional aspect.

... then we respectfully disagree. I think the RCC ALSO teaches the mystical church and technically anyway agrees with Protestants. I can quote your Catechism on that point. But, IN FUNCTION, this is entirely buried under a mountainous avalanche of MEism, institutionalism, denominationalism: MY experince (and any reading of the Catechism) is pretty overwhelming that the RCC is pretty obsessed with itself. And our little discussion here is an example of that: Why is the human leader of YOUR specific denomination all these remarkable things? Funny, I've said NOTHING about Jerry Kieschnick, lol...

But you know all this. You know our disagreement. But, what is VERY interesting to ME (now that I'm Protestant) is that the opening poster isn't Protestant. And it's not a laymen as am I, not a part of Apostolic Succession, without any "office." No. He's Orthodox. He's an Archbishop. He shares your view of Christianity being a denominational it.


Now, that a LUTHERAN disagrees with you about the Papacy is one thing (we disagree about the church), but an Archbishop disagrees with you. In fact, all non-Catholics disagree.

Sure - and all non-Catholics are wrong. Just because a bunch of people disagree with us does not make them right.

No argument there, lol!

But just because a denomination alone agrees with itself alone doesn't make it right, either, does it? I could mention a number of cults - but I don't need to, I'm sure you agree with me. So, again, I'm lost. I'm not sure why your rejecting as moot what a denomination says about itself supports why the RCC's claims for itself should be regarded as therefore correct. I think I'm missing how you're connecting the dots here.

In fact, I could (but won't) quote some things LUTHER said about the papacy and contrast them to some things some Orthodox bishops have said, but I think that would just detour us.

There's no need. I have already read plenty of them. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers are very right on a great many things. When it comes to the papacy - they happen to be wrong (at least in our opinion).

Sure. But it seems SIGNIFICANT to me in the light of YOUR point about the papacy and "the entire universal church." Again, the quotes from the opening post aren't from Luther or Calvin (whom you MAY not regard as having Apostolic Tradition, Authority or Succession) or from me (obviously, an uneducated laymen) BUT from the Archbishop of North America. Where is this "binding" of the "WHOLE universal church" of which you stressed is so important for the claims of the Pope?



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[MrPolo]

Did Christ follow a man?

I will answer your question after you answer mine.

Do you follow Christ or do you follow Matthew and Luke? Christ or men?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I just wanted to quote the above for future reference and response given the number of times that non-Catholics proceed to tell us Catholics that we're wrong.

Then I guess we are even

 

[Trento]

Did Christ follow a man?

For the typical Christian, Paul made it clear where doctrinal authority is found:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If ever there were a place where the bible should have been named as the highest or final authority for the average saint to prevail against "winds of doctrine", it is in the above passage. But instead all we see mentioned is the leadership of the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If ever there were a place where the bible should have been named as the highest or final authority for the average saint to prevail against "winds of doctrine", it is in the above passage. But instead all we see mentioned is the leadership of the Church.

Our you saying the one true Orthodox Church does not have a leadership?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

For the typical Christian, Paul made it clear where doctrinal authority is found:

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If ever there were a place where the bible should have been named as the highest or final authority for the average saint to prevail against "winds of doctrine", it is in the above passage. But instead all we see mentioned is the leadership of the Church.

Some notations:

1. There's no mention of the RCC denomination, or whoever is the RCC bishop for the diocese in Rome. Thus, I'm at a loss to understand what this verse has to do with the topic of this thread.

2. There's no mention of being infallible/unaccountable.

3. There are other Scriptures that warn us to beware of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, suggesting to ME, anyway, that we can be taught wrongly and lead astray...

4. Paul never once used the RCC rubric of Sola Ecclesia Roma. He did employ Sola Scriptura. Jesus didn't say, "I'm right so when I say I'm right, I'm right therefore accept what I say as right." Nope. He directed people to Holy Scripture (some 50 times!!!!!!!!).

5. In Revelation 2:2, Jesus praises the Ephesian CHRISTIANS for regarding their teachers as potentially fallible and errant, for testing them, for arbitrating the situation and for finding them to be false. Oddly, He never mentioned the RCC or the Pope in Rome - or even the RCC bishop of the diocese in question: He praised THEM for finding those teachers to be FALSE.


I'd LIKE if we could stick to the topic of the Infallible Pope in Rome and what the Archbishop wrote....




.

 

[MrPolo]

There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

In fairness to NewMan, there is an abundance of Protestants who have no problem with this language:

In what shape do we find the doctrine of sola Scriptura today? Many modern Evangelicals see it as a license to ignore history and the creeds in favor of a more splintered approach to Christian living. In the past two decades, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have strongly tried to undermine sola Scriptura as unbiblical, unhistorical, and impractical. But these groups rest their cases on a recent, false take on sola Scriptura. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison, back cover)

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. (Wikipedia, Sola Scriptura)

What does the doctrine of sola scriptura mean? [and he goes on to give his definitions...] (Mike Delgado, Christ Home Fellowship)

The doctrine of sola scriptura, with its teaching regarding the authority, completeness, perfection and sufficiency of Scripture, needs to be taught today with a renewed zeal and urgency. (Brian Schwertley, ReformedOnline.com)

Well, what I’d like to do in our short time this evening is offer a defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. I’m not embarrassed by that doctrine. I believe it is absolutely necessary to the health of the Church, and I am convinced (as Luther was convinced) that if we give up sola Scriptura, we will inevitably give up sola Gratia as well. (Dr. Greg Bahnsen, ChristianTruth.com)

etc....

 

[Standing Up]

OK, let us analyze this and see if we can come up with some logical conclusions therein.

-snip-


Behold I lay in Zion a stone, the corner stone, and HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.


Now, let's just do a textual analysis on this. He names Peter the corner stone and then follows the line "HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED"

Now, what this seems to say is, Jesus has designated Peter as the cornerstone and that if people followed the guidance of Peter as it relates to Jesus then they shall not be disappointed

1Pe 2:7 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,"

The precious value referred to here. Once again, Peter is established as the cornerstone. Even assigns a precious value in following the guidance of Peter as it relates to following Jesus further giving proof to the fact of Peter's charge from Jesus

1Pe 2:8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Yes they are being disobedient to the word, and by the verses already quoted here, the conduit of the word and future instructions is the corner stone, which recieves the message from the savior

1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1Pe 2:10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.



I think I have made my point in a salient manner

Is this really the RCC teaching!!??

Peter is the cornerstone????????

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In fairness to NewMan, there is an abundance of Protestants who have no problem with this language

Some do, unfortunately. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But just as Bob has distanced himself from some things Catholics might say, so I might distance myself from some things a few Protestants might say.


Discussions of the praxis of Sola Scriptura can happen here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7231168/



Of course, such has nothing to do with individual...anything (the context of his point). My Lutheran Catechism says NOTHING about the task of giving an authoritative interpretation of the Word of God being assumed by whatever denomination so self-claims for self alone. Contrast that, if you will, with Catholic Catechism # 85. It reads (I have this pretty much memorized), "The task of giving an authentic (read: authoritative/unaccountable) interpretation of the Word of God, whether Scripture or Tradition, belongs to the teaching office of the Catholic Church ALONE (sola ecclesia). This means that the bishops of the Catholic Church insists that this task belongs to the bishops of the Catholic Church who are in communion with the successor of Peter, who is the Pope in Rome." So, the RCC simply insists that there is ONE interpreter of Scripture: itself, and claims taht such is the ONLY authoritative/infallible interpretation. Now, put that together with # 87, which reads (again, from memory): "Mindful of Christ's words to His Apostles (note: one of many factual errors in the Catechism) 'He who hears you, hears me' the faithful recieve with docility (sic) the teachings giving to them by their Catholic bishops." So, the RCC not only insists on the most radical, extreme from of private, individual interpretation known to me, but goes on to declare that such is Jesus speaking and must be accepted with docility - making it's unaccountable status undeniably and crystal clear. To ME, this is the most radical, extreme form of individualism I've ever read: the RCC is simply declaring ITSELF as the sole ("alone") interpreter - and making that unaccountable.

... but we digress. The POINT here is the RCC bishop of the diocese of Rome, and the points of the Orthodox Archbishop of North America - a teacher of some standing for those who accept Apostolic Tradition, Succession and Authority, I would think.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.