Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[SabbathBlessings]

Jesus died to sanctify a Church unto Himself... not to provide a book... not to found a book club. A CHURCH. What makes the Scripture Sacred is that it is the product of... the Church. It's about people, living Epistles, living stones. Some have made a greater idol of the Scriptures than most Catholics have of the Saints. lol

Jesus died for the forgiveness of our sins and for sanctification for all people. Not everyone accepts the free gift of grace Jesus gives when we repent and turn from our sins to walk in Christ.

Jesus commissioned the disciples to follow and teach everything He commanded.

The church that is left of Christ is a remnant and scripture gives us the traits of His church:

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

The Roman Catholic church admit they changed the commandments of God and not on scriptural authority which is exactly what Jesus warned us about. Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:6-7.

Quotes from the RCC

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; —she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174


Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
—Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50


Scripture says:

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

I know you have trust in your church, but we should place our trust in Christ and follow His Word, its the only way we know we won’t be deceived.

We will probably have to agree to disagree and thanks for engaging.

God bless!

 

[Nj_]

Since the Scriptures weren't compiled into what you know today as the Bible until the late 300's... what guided the Church for nearly 400 years? What was the test of truth? And... what part does that play in the Church's compilation and canonization of the Bible you regard so highly?

Scriptures (More specifically the NT) weren't officially compiled into a Canon until the late 300s, but the Gospels, Epistles, etc. were a thing before this happened, and people knew they were a thing, and they studied Scripture and that's how you end up with people like Justin Martyr being able to quote the Gospels. It's not like no one knew about the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, etc. until magically the Pope (Who wasn't even a thing back then) decided to make a Canon and ta-da, the Bible became a thing.

 

[Christopher0121]

I understand that Catholic means Universal, and I believe in the Catholicity of the Church (Just not your Church), which is why I almost always wrote Roman Catholic (I realized I forgot to add the Roman in the first sentence), I just don't believe that the Roman Church is the true Church, and I don't believe it is the Catholic Church in that sense either, but that's what it's often called at this point.

A lot of people will be shocked when they realize Heaven appears as it does in the Revelation with praying saints, interceding angels, the burning of incense, etc. and it begins to set in that they are about to enter into Judgment before... a heavenly liturgy. The Revelation is an entire liturgical structure.

Also, the fact that you agree that the doctrine of Papal Primacy was formally established after Peter is pretty problematic, especially since there's only one verse from where you get this doctrine, and it is a verse you misinterpret.

As with the doctrine of the Trinity, Papal authority wasn't firmly established until it was questioned. It always existed. Peter and those who sat in the Seat of Peter have always had the Keys to the Kingdom. It just didn't become an issue until others rejected Christ appointed authority.

As for the first among equals, we both know that the teaching of Rome is that the Pope is not merely primus inter pares, but that he actually is in a position of supreme authority over all other Bishops which is why the Great Schism happened. You're essentially subscribing to a doctrine with no biblical support, that started way after the death of Peter, and that is contradicted by the very same Church fathers you claim are a part of your tradition.

Let's look at the Bible since we both believe in Scripture. I don't find this in one passage. There's SO much to this, I'll try to keep it short and focused three passages, maybe four.

Matthew 16:17-19
New Catholic Bible
17 Then Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. 18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of 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.”​

We see several things here. On account of Simon's profession of faith Jesus renames Simon, Peter (Rock). Then, using a play on words implicating both Peter AND his profession of faith as being the "rock" on which He would build His Church. Then Jesus gives PETER the keys to the kingdom and authority to bind and lose on earth regarding interpretation, tradition, and practice. This is born out by Christ's use of the Rabbinical term, "Hebrew, asar ve-hittir" (to bind and loose/permit and forbid). Who were the keys given to??? Peter.

Also, Christ used this phrase that is actually not only a reference to asar ve-hittir, but also to an ancient Jewish office. We all know that in ancient Israel the King's mother served as Queen Mother. However, in the King's absence the Queen didn't rule, it was the "governor" or what we might call a Prime Minister today. Here we will read in Isaiah concerning Eliakim's prophesied appointment to governor...

Isaiah 22:20-23
New Catholic Bible
20 On that day I will summon
my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah.
21 I will clothe him with your robe
and place your sash around his waist,
and I will bestow upon him your authority.
He will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder
the key of the house of David.
When he opens,
no one will close;
when he closes,
no one will open.
23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place,
and he will become a throne of honor for his family.​

Here we read how God would elevate Eliakim to governor over Israel, giving him the "key of the house of David", giving him authority to "open and no one will close" and "when he closes, no one will open". The governor was to serve as a peg in a secure place. An anchor. Any Jew listening to Jesus appoint Peter would realize that Jesus was appointing Peter as God appointed Eliakim. Peter would be governor under the King of Kings, having the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, with authority to bind and loose as it relates to authority in the Church in regards to faith and practice.

We see Peter's authority put to use here...

Acts 15:7-12
New Catholic Bible
7 After a long period of debate, Peter stood up to address them. “Brethren,” he said, “you are well aware that in the early days God made his choice among you that it would be through my mouth that the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving to them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between them and us, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 “Therefore, why are you determined to try God’s patience by laying a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither we nor our ancestors have found easy to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are, through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” 12 On hearing this, the whole assembly fell silent, and they listened as Barnabas and Paul described all the signs and wonders that God had worked through them among the Gentiles.​

You will note that here there is great debate within the early Church. Should Gentiles be forced to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised? The debate raged on until Peter stood and addressed the group. After Peter addressed the debating Church, "the whole assembly fell silent". His word was authoritative. It was then that Barnabas and Paul felt free to take the floor and affirm Peter's declaration.

I keep posting this like a broken record, but no one reads it. lol The phrase to "bind and loose" is best explained by the Jewish Encyclopedia...

Binding and loosing (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabbinical term for ‘forbidding and permitting. The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” . . . The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast day (Talmud: Ta’anit 12a). . . . This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).​

By these words Jesus invested PETER with the same authority as that which belonged to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers”; that is “loose them,” as they have the power to do (Matt. 23:2-4). Jesus used the same phrases used in relation to an appointed governor serving under a King. In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II (Clementine Homilies, Introduction [A.D. 221]) Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying:

“I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church” (3:215).​

Thus Jesus invested PETER, and Peter his successors, with the power of making halakah for the Christian community. This includes the setting of fast days, establishing holy tradition, and speaking to moral and doctrinal issues.

This cannot be denied by anyone truly educated in the Scriptures.

I don't have a problem with changing how the Church does things as long as its in accordance with Scripture, but one of the central doctrines upon which your Church is built changing overtime is pretty problematic.

Only by those who misunderstand it.

When I was in the Army we learned in PLDC that leadership comes in three forms. Delegative, Participative, and Directive. Just because the office of Peter largely used delegative and participative leadership within the early Church doesn't negate the authority of the office to use directive leadership when necessary, as with the Filioque.

 

[Christopher0121]

Scriptures (More specifically the NT) weren't officially compiled into a Canon until the late 300s, but the Gospels, Epistles, etc. were a thing before this happened, and people knew they were a thing, and they studied Scripture and that's how you end up with people like Justin Martyr being able to quote the Gospels. It's not like no one knew about the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, etc. until magically the Pope (Who wasn't even a thing back then) decided to make a Canon and ta-da, the Bible became a thing.

Prior to the Canon the Scriptures were scattered copies of copies of letters that were being circulated and studied. The earliest attempts at a compiled text didn't have James, Hebrews, or the Revelation prior to the Canon. In addition they were circulated with spurious texts that were fraudulent. It wasn't until the late 300's that the NT as you know it was compiled into a single Canon.

There was no printing press. Copies were hand written. Most were illiterate. There was more iconography and liturgies teaching the truths of Scripture during those years than there was copies of Scripture.

 

[Christopher0121]

It's not like no one knew about the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, etc. until magically the Pope (Who wasn't even a thing back then) decided to make a Canon and ta-da, the Bible became a thing.

Ummmm... Pope Damasus I approved the Canon produced by the Council of Rome (382). Does he know Popes "wasn't a thing back then"? lol

Who Compiled the Bible and When?

 

[Nj_]

A lot of people will be shocked when they realize Heaven appears as it does in the Revelation with praying saints, interceding angels, the burning of incense, etc. and it begins to set in that they are about to enter into Judgment before... a heavenly liturgy. The Revelation is an entire liturgical structure.



As with the doctrine of the Trinity, Papal authority wasn't firmly established until it was questioned. It always existed. Peter and those who sat in the Seat of Peter have always had the Keys to the Kingdom. It just didn't become an issue until others rejected Christ appointed authority.



Let's look at the Bible since we both believe in Scripture. I don't find this in one passage. There's SO much to this, I'll try to keep it short and focused three passages, maybe four.

Matthew 16:17-19
New Catholic Bible
17 Then Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. 18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of 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.”​

We see several things here. On account of Simon's profession of faith Jesus renames Simon, Peter (Rock). Then, using a play on words implicating both Peter AND his profession of faith as being the "rock" on which He would build His Church. Then Jesus gives PETER the keys to the kingdom and authority to bind and lose on earth regarding interpretation, tradition, and practice. This is born out by Christ's use of the Rabbinical term, "Hebrew, asar ve-hittir" (to bind and loose/permit and forbid). Who were the keys given to??? Peter.

Also, Christ used this phrase that is actually not only a reference to asar ve-hittir, but also to an ancient Jewish office. We all know that in ancient Israel the King's mother served as Queen Mother. However, in the King's absence the Queen didn't rule, it was the "governor" or what we might call a Prime Minister today. Here we will read in Isaiah concerning Eliakim's prophesied appointment to governor...

Isaiah 22:20-23
New Catholic Bible
20 On that day I will summon
my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah.
21 I will clothe him with your robe
and place your sash around his waist,
and I will bestow upon him your authority.
He will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder
the key of the house of David.
When he opens,
no one will close;
when he closes,
no one will open.
23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place,
and he will become a throne of honor for his family.​

Here we read how God would elevate Eliakim to governor over Israel, giving him the "key of the house of David", giving him authority to "open and no one will close" and "when he closes, no one will open". The governor was to serve as a peg in a secure place. An anchor. Any Jew listening to Jesus appoint Peter would realize that Jesus was appointing Peter as God appointed Eliakim. Peter would be governor under the King of Kings, having the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, with authority to bind and loose as it relates to authority in the Church in regards to faith and practice.

We see Peter's authority put to use here...

Acts 15:7-12
New Catholic Bible
7 After a long period of debate, Peter stood up to address them. “Brethren,” he said, “you are well aware that in the early days God made his choice among you that it would be through my mouth that the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving to them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between them and us, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 “Therefore, why are you determined to try God’s patience by laying a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither we nor our ancestors have found easy to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved in the same way as they are, through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” 12 On hearing this, the whole assembly fell silent, and they listened as Barnabas and Paul described all the signs and wonders that God had worked through them among the Gentiles.​

You will note that here there is great debate within the early Church. Should Gentiles be forced to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised? The debate raged on until Peter stood and addressed the group. After Peter addressed the debating Church, "the whole assembly fell silent". His word was authoritative. It was then that Barnabas and Paul felt free to take the floor and affirm Peter's declaration.

I keep posting this like a broken record, but no one reads it. lol The phrase to "bind and loose" is best explained by the Jewish Encyclopedia...

Binding and loosing (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabbinical term for ‘forbidding and permitting. The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” . . . The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast day (Talmud: Ta’anit 12a). . . . This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).​

By these words Jesus invested PETER with the same authority as that which belonged to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers”; that is “loose them,” as they have the power to do (Matt. 23:2-4). Jesus used the same phrases used in relation to an appointed governor serving under a King. In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II (Clementine Homilies, Introduction [A.D. 221]) Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying:

“I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church” (3:215).​

Thus Jesus invested PETER, and Peter his successors, with the power of making halakah for the Christian community. This includes the setting of fast days, establishing holy tradition, and speaking to moral and doctrinal issues.

This cannot be denied by anyone truly educated in the Scriptures.



Only by those who misunderstand it.

When I was in the Army we learned in PLDC that leadership comes in three forms. Delegative, Participative, and Directive. Just because the office of Peter largely used delegative and participative leadership within the early Church doesn't negate the authority of the office to use directive leadership when necessary, as with the Filioque.

Again, there's only one verse you can use to "prove" Peter is the rock, and you're misinterpreting it, the Church Father's understood that Peter wasn't the rock, the keys are a whole other discussion, but the argument for the Primacy of the Pope rests mostly on Peter being the rock, which I've proven he is not.

 

[Christopher0121]

Scriptures (More specifically the NT) weren't officially compiled into a Canon until the late 300s, but the Gospels, Epistles, etc. were a thing before this happened, and people knew they were a thing, and they studied Scripture and that's how you end up with people like Justin Martyr being able to quote the Gospels. It's not like no one knew about the Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, etc. until magically the Pope (Who wasn't even a thing back then) decided to make a Canon and ta-da, the Bible became a thing.

On the topic of Scripture, to make matters worse... the Protestants took our Canon and sliced it up. Originally it was 73 books. The Protestants cut out 7 key books because they were too Catholic and support many Catholic beliefs and practices. So, non-Catholics who do not study the Catholic Bible (the original Canon) are left with the impression that Catholic beliefs aren't in Scripture. That's very very deceptive if you ask me.

 

[Christopher0121]

Again, there's only one verse you can use to "prove" Peter is the rock, and you're misinterpreting it, the Church Father's understood that Peter wasn't the rock, the keys are a whole other discussion, but the argument for the Primacy of the Pope rests mostly on Peter being the rock, which I've proven he is not.

So... you're entire polemic is a rejection of the use of the word "Rock" for Peter when Jesus clearly used it in double entendre after renaming Simon (which means "unsteady") to Peter (which literally means... "Rock")???? LOL

 

[Nj_]

Prior to the Canon the Scriptures were scattered copies of copies of letters that were being circulated and studied. The earliest attempts at a compiled text didn't have James, Hebrews, or the Revelation prior to the Canon. In addition they were circulated with spurious texts that were fraudulent. It wasn't until the late 300's that the NT as you know it was compiled into a single Canon.

There was no printing press. Copies were hand written. Most were illiterate. There was more iconography and liturgies teaching the truths of Scripture during those years than there was copies of Scripture.

I didn't claim they had a perfect Canon, if anything I used the Councils and Synods that compiled the Canon to prove that you're wrong when it comes to Papal Primacy, I'm simply saying that it's not like the Bible just randomly came into existence with the Canons, the inspired word of God was already out there and people could study it, Canons simply put it together and left outside Apocrypha.

 

[Christopher0121]

I didn't claim they had a prefect Canon, if anything I used the Councils and Synods that compiled the Canon to prove that you're wrong when it comes to Papal Primacy, I'm simply saying that it's not like the Bible just randomly came into existence with the Canons, the inspired word of God was already out there and people could study it, Canons simply put it together and left outside Apocrypha.

You know the Catholic Canon is quoted and alluded to by Christ Himself in the New Testament prolifically, right?

 

[Nj_]

Ummmm... Pope Damasus I approved the Canon produced by the Council of Rome (382). Does he know Popes "wasn't a thing back then"? lol

Who Compiled the Bible and When?

When did Damasus claim to be superior to the other Bishops just because he was Bishop of Rome? I've shown you quotes from his contemporaries making it clear that they didn't believe in a Bishop of Bishops and several councils make it clear that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over others

 

[Nj_]

So... you're entire polemic is a rejection of the use of the word "Rock" for Peter when Jesus clearly used it in double entendre after renaming Simon (which means "unsteady") to Peter (which literally means... "Rock")???? LOL

There's a difference between Petros and Petra.

The rock upon which the Church is built is the declaration which Peter gives, not Peter himself, this is why Christ speaks about this rock and not 'you' but he does use 'you' when talking to Peter and the Apostles about the Keys for example, I've quoted like 3 Church Fathers that explain this.

I feel like we're going in circles

 

[Christopher0121]

When did Damasus claim to be superior to the other Bishops just because he was Bishop of Rome? I've shown you quotes from his contemporaries making it clear that they didn't believe in a Bishop of Bishops and several councils make it clear that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over others

There is so much to this and I have to go to work. I'm a 911 Police/Emergency Dispatcher. But to save time I will direct you to two links that refute what you're saying thoroughly.

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope (Part II)

 

[Christopher0121]

There's a difference between Petros and Petra.

The rock upon which the Church is built is the declaration which Peter gives, not Peter himself, this is why Christ speaks about this rock and not 'you' but he does use 'you' when talking to Peter and the Apostles about the Keys for example, I've quoted like 3 Church Fathers that explain this.

I feel like we're going in circles

I don't think so. I acknowledge what you're saying. The Rock is the foundational profession of faith as spoken by Peter. However, on account of this profession, Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and given sole authority to bind and lose as it relates to interpretation, faith, and practice in the Church.

 

[Christopher0121]

There's a difference between Petros and Petra.

The rock upon which the Church is built is the declaration which Peter gives, not Peter himself, this is why Christ speaks about this rock and not 'you' but he does use 'you' when talking to Peter and the Apostles about the Keys for example, I've quoted like 3 Church Fathers that explain this.

I feel like we're going in circles

You might find this helpful...

Peter the Rock

 

[Nj_]

There is so much to this and I have to go to work. I'm a 911 Police/Emergency Dispatcher. But to save time I will direct you to two links that refute what you're saying thoroughly.

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope

What the Early Church Believed: The Authority of the Pope (Part II)

I've sent quotes from Church Father's where they clearly oppose the idea of a Bishop of Bishops or Pope, but I also have stuff to do and this is going in circles, i can send more writings of the Early Church Fathers that go against Papal Primacy tomorrow if you want to, but as of right now I'll just go because I have other things to do. God bless.

 

[Christopher0121]

I've sent quotes from Church Father's where they clearly oppose the idea of a Bishop of Bishops or Pope, but I also have stuff to do and this is going in circles, i can send more writings of the Early Church Fathers that go against Papal Primacy tomorrow if you want to, but as of right now I'll just go because I have other things to do. God bless.

Fathers who disagree with the authority of the Seat of Peter are as mistaken as anyone else who refuse Peter's Christ appointed authority. But the fact that they commented upon it illustrates the notion's prevalence from the earliest days of the Church.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You're comparison is outside of historical context. First, there were many going back to the first century who recognized Peter's office and the one seated in Peter's office was regarded as the "first among equals" for many centuries. However, when the Roman Pope endorsed the Filioque in the Creed the issue of authority rose to the forefront. Those who deny that Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and authority to bind and loose stood in opposition, claiming he overstepped his boundaries. However, to Western Christians who embraced the clear teaching that Christ appointed Peter Prince of the Apostles and issued him the Keys to the Kingdom emphasized this authority was indeed of God. This caused the Great Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Prior to this... all were simply a part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", as it is called in the Creed.

As mentioned before, the early Church regarded the Seat of Peter as being "first among equals". It really wasn't until the Great Schism that the authority of the Seat of Peter in relation to the rest of the Church really came into focus. But again... there was far more unity in those centuries also. As political power began to be put to bear upon Rome vs. Constantinople many "issues" relating to authority in the Church pitched East against West.

That's a fair point. Personally, I am but a hair's breadth from counting the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After all... before the issue relating to the Filioque we were one body. I do pray that Peter and Andrew one day reconcile.

Protestantism isn't a monolithic body. It is a general term for a swath of different churches that own their existence to their "protest" against the Catholic Church (hence the term "Protest-ant"). And while there is debate within the Catholic Church on various issues, we are a single monolithic body. And we have a means of Apostolic authority that can be brought to bear to resolve such differences. This power isn't used flippantly and so to some degree debate is permitted and even encouraged. Within Protestantism it is each church start up claiming its truth above all others. It gets worse when one factors in the cults and non-denominational Evangelicals. It's a theological mosh pit of confusion and chaos.



I took some time and road with the Reformed Baptists for a while. My favorite work at that time was, Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem. I wakened to the reality that one cannot shop for a Church. One must actually take a deep breath and surrender to historical truth. There's only one Church that was founded by Christ and the Apostles. Only one Church hailing from the Fathers and the Councils. One Church that recognizes the authority Christ invested in the Seat of Peter. And that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What I prefer, what I think, what I understand, what I might want doesn't matter. It's a matter of surrendering to what is. And I've found peace and assurance in the Catholic faith... a faith that predates Reformed Christianity by roughly 1,500 years.

If a Church predates a second church, it isn't possible that the second church originated with Christ and the Apostles. One can argue that they believe the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles apostatized (as most Protestants believe) but that flies in the face of Christ's promise that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against the Church He was founding and appointing Peter authority over.

The Creeds are the product of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Out of that Church we have Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Churches, etc. Since Jesus appointed Peter Prince of the Apostles and gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom to bind and loose on earth... out of all of these Churches only one, the Roman Catholic Church, still holds to the authority appointed by Christ.

That's ultimately what it boils down to. Authority. Which Church has the authority? Which Church recognizes Christ's appointed authority over the Church? And at the end of the day that single point leads one to the Catholic faith, for it was Peter whom Jesus gave the keys to.

I would like to go on record and say that I'm not a big fan of this Pope. I'm far more conservative. But at this time Francis is the man of the hour over Christ's Church. And so my highest respect is for the office, though I disagree with the man in said office. It's much like a President. I'm not a big fan of some Presidents. However, I am an 8 year Army veteran...the President, agree with him or not... is still my President.

Um, excuse me?!?! Rome was only one of many patriarchates. It NEVER held power or authority over anything except its own patriarchal territory. It held the honorary title of first among equals because it was the largest in the empire at the time. Anything else is just Roman propaganda and revisionist church history...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Matthew 16:17-19

New Catholic Bible
17 Then Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. 18 And I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of 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.”​

We see several things here. On account of Simon's profession of faith Jesus renames Simon, Peter (Rock). Then, using a play on words implicating both Peter AND his profession of faith as being the "rock" on which He would build His Church.

That is not true. He was nicknamed Peter/Kepha as soon as Yeshua met him... John 1:42

 

[Leaf473]

One of the misrepresentations we see in this thread is the insistence those who believe the 10 are retired therefore believe we are free to commit murder, adultery, etc.

This is, of course, false.

Whether you like it or not, our position does not force us into such a position no matter how much that would serve your agenda.

The reason is simple and cannot be misunderstood: we believe that the indwelling Spirit as well as the teachings of Jesus give us a moral compass.

You are free to disagree with what we believe to be the case about where one gets moral guidance. But you are most certainly not free to tell us that we believe something that we do not - that it is acceptable to sin.

It is an abject and pernicious falsehood to claim that we think its OK to sin.

I agree. And along those same lines, it's not about Should we obey God or not. I don't know of any Christian who says we should disobey God.

The place where Christians see things differently is which laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy ended at the cross.

For me, the Bible makes the most sense if we take the view that all those laws have ended, at least for Christians. What God wants for us is to pursue a lifestyle, a lifestyle that strangles The works of the flesh and grows the fruit of the Spirit.

Many of the principles found in those Genesis-to-Deuteronomy laws will of course be followed in that lifestyle. And those laws are a great place to learn about the character of God, as well.

 

[Leaf473]

It doesn't matter what you believe, I believe, or anyone else believes. The Church has ruled that the 10 Commandments are of an eternal moral nature and not only perfectly express God's holiness but man's need for a Savior and therefore are binding today. And they are fulfilled simply by living a life of love towards God and others. Beyond this, we have feast days, traditions, and cultural manners and customs.

I just want to note that I think one could reasonably say that the Church has
engaged in "binding and loosing" of the ten commandments. Also the rest of the law, e.g. laws about usury.