Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Acts 15:1-12
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. RSVCE

Yes, Peter spoke out. He showed leadership. That does not mean he had authority over the other Apostles. I don't doubt that Peter was a leader. That he spoke out on that occasion does not mean he was head of all the Apostles. I believe that is the only example of his leadership we have, so you can't prove anything by that. Some people have a gift for seeing through all the issues and distilling a debate down to its essence and proposing a solution. I have been able to do that in both work situations and church situations. I call it "leading from beneath." I had no authority and was one voice among many, but sometimes you see the issue more clearly and hit upon the solution, and once you state your opinion, people agree, and it settles the debate. That sounds like what happened there. We don't know that Peter was having the final word and deciding for the group.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, Peter spoke out. He showed leadership. That does not mean he had authority over the other Apostles. I don't doubt that Peter was a leader. That he spoke out on that occasion does not mean he was head of all the Apostles. I believe that is the only example of his leadership we have, so you can't prove anything by that. Some people have a gift for seeing through all the issues and distilling a debate down to its essence and proposing a solution. I have been able to do that in both work situations and church situations. I call it "leading from beneath." I had no authority and was one voice among many, but sometimes you see the issue more clearly and hit upon the solution, and once you state your opinion, people agree, and it settles the debate. That sounds like what happened there. We don't know that Peter was having the final word and deciding for the group.

Apostles could correct Peter when they felt he was wrong. But differences of opinion on important matters on occasion need to be settled and someone needs to do it. Decisions are made after consultation and discussion with the Apostles/bishops. In Isaiah, when the king of the Davidic kingdom was gone someone had to make decisions.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Apostles could correct Peter when they felt he was wrong. But differences of opinion on important matters on occasion need to be settled and someone needs to do it. Decisions are made after consultation and discussion with the Apostles/bishops. In Isaiah, when the king of the Davidic kingdom was gone someone had to make decisions.

Even if Peter spoke boldly and settled the debate that does not prove he held authority over the other Apostles nor that he held an office that would have successors.

 

[David Lamb]

Even if Peter spoke boldly and settled the debate that does not prove he held authority over the other Apostles nor that he held an office that would have successors.

Agreed. If he had authority over the other apostles, we wouldn't read of Paul withstanding him:

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;” (Ga 2:11 NKJV)

 

[Valletta]

Agreed. If he had authority over the other apostles, we wouldn't read of Paul withstanding him:

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;” (Ga 2:11 NKJV)

When there was disagreement Peter was to, after consulting with the other Apostles, make important decisions for the Catholic Church. You can go to great lengths to try and explain away those words paralleling Isaiah, and Jesus giving Simon the name Rock (Peter) and giving the key to the Davidic kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. But Peter indeed had a special role, not to boss the other Apostles around, but as a spiritual father:

Luke 5:1-10 1 While the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennes′aret. 2 And he saw two boats by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. 3 Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. 4 And when he had ceased speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” 5 And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” 6 And when they had done this, they enclosed a great shoal of fish; and as their nets were breaking, 7 they beckoned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. 8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” 9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken; 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zeb′edee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” RSVCE

 

[David Lamb]

10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zeb′edee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” RSVCE

Jesus said a similar thing to all His disciples:

“Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."” (Mt 4:19 NKJV)

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

When there was disagreement Peter was to, after consulting with the other Apostles, make important decisions for the Catholic Church. You can go to great lengths to try and explain away those words paralleling Isaiah, and Jesus giving Simon the name Rock (Peter) and giving the key to the Davidic kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. But Peter indeed had a special role, not to boss the other Apostles around, but as a spiritual father:

Luke 5:1-10 1 While the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennes′aret. 2 And he saw two boats by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. 3 Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. 4 And when he had ceased speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” 5 And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” 6 And when they had done this, they enclosed a great shoal of fish; and as their nets were breaking, 7 they beckoned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. 8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” 9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken; 10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zeb′edee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” RSVCE

16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’” (2 Samuel 7:16)

This was Samuel prophesying to David.

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. (Acts 2:29-30)

Jesus, not Peter, was a descendant of David. The prophecy is fulfilled with Jesus sitting on the Throne of David from heaven:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
(Acts 2:34-35)

7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. (Revelation 3:7-8)

Who is "him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David?" It is Jesus Christ. Revelation 3 is a series of messages from the Lord to churches. He tells the church in Philadelphia they have an open door in front of them. Keys are used to lock and unlock doors. What did this door represent?

In the NT, doors represent ministry opportunities (Acts 14:27, 1 Cor 16:9, 2 Cor 2:12, Col 4:3). Jesus is the Lord of the harvest and head of the church and determines where and when His people shall serve (see Acts 16:6-10).

The key given to Peter, the Apostles, and all of us is the key to unlock the door of heaven and enable lost sinners to enter. We unlock it by sharing the Gospel (our ministry), and the very same confession of faith Peter made is what enables all who make it to enter into heaven.

In Isaiah 22, Eliakim is a picture of Jesus, who would sit on the throne of David and be the head of the church. Jesus is the door:

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

We come to the Father through Jesus. He is the door. How does one enter through the door?

“That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

The key(s) do not represent an earthly office. They represent opening and shutting the door to heaven through the preaching of the Gospel (doors in the NT represent ministry opportunities), and the door to heaven is unlocked by the confession that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Jesus gave Peter, the Apostles, and all of us the "key" to heaven. He was not establishing an earthly office. His application was spiritual. Eliakim was promoted to an earthly office, but Christ was to a much higher spiritual office. The parallel is between Eliakim and Jesus.

 

[BT3241]

I disagree Mary was not in a fallen state - in order for Jesus to come and take on flesh.He could not take on flesh in a fallen state or do you say he could.Why does that matter it means Mary was not in a fallen state and did not have a sinful nature like us she was capable of not sinning.It does not make her a God or equal to Jesus.Is it not what we hope for.It says in Mark he had 4 brothers and two sisters the text does not say they were Mary's children its says Jesus mother was with them.Josephs was a old man who took her in to prevent scandal it was not uncommon.They were not two teenagers in love depicted by Hollywood.

 

[Valletta]

16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’” (2 Samuel 7:16)

This was Samuel prophesying to David.

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. (Acts 2:29-30)

Jesus, not Peter, was a descendant of David. The prophecy is fulfilled with Jesus sitting on the Throne of David from heaven:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
(Acts 2:34-35)

7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. (Revelation 3:7-8)

Who is "him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David?" It is Jesus Christ. Revelation 3 is a series of messages from the Lord to churches. He tells the church in Philadelphia they have an open door in front of them. Keys are used to lock and unlock doors. What did this door represent?

In the NT, doors represent ministry opportunities (Acts 14:27, 1 Cor 16:9, 2 Cor 2:12, Col 4:3). Jesus is the Lord of the harvest and head of the church and determines where and when His people shall serve (see Acts 16:6-10).

The key given to Peter, the Apostles, and all of us is the key to unlock the door of heaven and enable lost sinners to enter. We unlock it by sharing the Gospel (our ministry), and the very same confession of faith Peter made is what enables all who make it to enter into heaven.

In Isaiah 22, Eliakim is a picture of Jesus, who would sit on the throne of David and be the head of the church. Jesus is the door:

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

We come to the Father through Jesus. He is the door. How does one enter through the door?

“That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

The key(s) do not represent an earthly office. They represent opening and shutting the door to heaven through the preaching of the Gospel (doors in the NT represent ministry opportunities), and the door to heaven is unlocked by the confession that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Jesus gave Peter, the Apostles, and all of us the "key" to heaven. He was not establishing an earthly office. His application was spiritual. Eliakim was promoted to an earthly office, but Christ was to a much higher spiritual office. The parallel is between Eliakim and Jesus.

As I've explained to you, Jesus, not Peter, is prefigured in Isaiah by the king. Peter is prefigured as the prime minister. In Isaiah, the key of the Davidic kingdom is given by the king to the prime minister as a sign of authority for when the king is absent. It is an earthly office, obviously someone has to make decisions.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

As I've explained to you, Jesus, not Peter, is prefigured in Isaiah by the king. Peter is prefigured as the prime minister. In Isaiah, the key of the Davidic kingdom is given by the king to the prime minister as a sign of authority for when the king is absent. It is an earthly office, obviously someone has to make decisions.

Unlike an earthly king, who cannot be in two places at once, God is omnipresent. Jesus is absent in body only and needs no prime minister.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:6)

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus told the disciples that it was to their advantage that He return to the Father because He would send them the Holy Spirit. As believers, they already had the Holy Spirit within them but this was Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to empower them and to "bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" which is one reason we have the Scriptures.

13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (John 14:13)

Jesus left us something far better than a prime minister. He left us the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the head of the church. We know His will via the Holy Spirit. You will no doubt argue we need a tie-breaker and someone to decide when there is disagreement. In many Protestant churches, elders rule by unanimous agreement. If they initially have different opinions, they keep discussing and praying until they come to a consensus. God may use one of them, as He did Peter in the Jerusalem council, to speak out and make a statement that persuades the group. It might be a different elder each time or perhaps there is one elder who is predominantly the one who helps bring unanimity. That person does not have authority over the others. They simply help facilitate a unanimous agreement.

You will also likely point out the disagreements among Protestant churches but as I and others have responded, these are not disagreements over essential doctrine and we do not believe we have to do everything exactly the same. It is permissible to use different music, give different sermons, and say different prayers. Some Protestant churches like to be liturgical, while others do not. These are allowable differences and not evidence that we are all over the map theologically and in need of a Pope...

Popes have not always agreed with each other and the church has changed its position on different things. Almost no infallible statements were made by Popes until the mid-1800s. The RCC has not even published a list of infallible teachings (Which Church teachings have been declared infallible?). Even within the RCC, the Pope rarely needs to settle disputes, and he only does so for a fraction of the church on earth.

The King (Jesus) is not absent. He is with us always through the Holy Spirit. He reigns from heaven and has no earthly prime minister. When asked who would sit at His right hand and His left hand in heaven, Jesus did not say Peter would. He said that was up to the Father and the Apostles have their own 12 thrones. Eliakim was a type of Christ but we should not carry the analogy too far and say it must be fulfilled in all details. If anyone is a "prime minister" it is Jesus carrying out the will of the Father.

 

[Valletta]

Unlike an earthly king, who cannot be in two places at once, God is omnipresent. Jesus is absent in body only and needs no prime minister.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:6)

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus told the disciples that it was to their advantage that He return to the Father because He would send them the Holy Spirit. As believers, they already had the Holy Spirit within them but this was Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to empower them and to "bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" which is one reason we have the Scriptures.

13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (John 14:13)

Jesus left us something far better than a prime minister. He left us the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the head of the church. We know His will via the Holy Spirit. You will no doubt argue we need a tie-breaker and someone to decide when there is disagreement. In many Protestant churches, elders rule by unanimous agreement. If they initially have different opinions, they keep discussing and praying until they come to a consensus. God may use one of them, as He did Peter in the Jerusalem council, to speak out and make a statement that persuades the group. It might be a different elder each time or perhaps there is one elder who is predominantly the one who helps bring unanimity. That person does not have authority over the others. They simply help facilitate a unanimous agreement.

You will also likely point out the disagreements among Protestant churches but as I and others have responded, these are not disagreements over essential doctrine and we do not believe we have to do everything exactly the same. It is permissible to use different music, give different sermons, and say different prayers. Some Protestant churches like to be liturgical, while others do not. These are allowable differences and not evidence that we are all over the map theologically and in need of a Pope...

Popes have not always agreed with each other and the church has changed its position on different things. Almost no infallible statements were made by Popes until the mid-1800s. The RCC has not even published a list of infallible teachings (Which Church teachings have been declared infallible?). Even within the RCC, the Pope rarely needs to settle disputes, and he only does so for a fraction of the church on earth.

The King (Jesus) is not absent. He is with us always through the Holy Spirit. He reigns from heaven and has no earthly prime minister. When asked who would sit at His right hand and His left hand in heaven, Jesus did not say Peter would. He said that was up to the Father and the Apostles have their own 12 thrones. Eliakim was a type of Christ but we should not carry the analogy too far and say it must be fulfilled in all details. If anyone is a "prime minister" it is Jesus carrying out the will of the Father.

Jesus did not "need" a pope, much like Jesus did not "need" any of the Apostles. But I accept God's ways knowing that His ways are far above our ways. In retrospect the wisdom of God's plan should be evident, at times someone needs to make decisions on earth, whether it be a decision about whether Baptism replaces circumcision or a dispute about whether a particular passage or book is God-breathed or whether a member of the clergy is acting properly. You have expressed a number of times that you think the priests should be able to come up with their own prayers for the Catholic mass liturgy. The mass is by far the most dominant Catholic public prayer. The mass is unifying. But most importantly Catholics consider the mass holy and what is going on as sacred. Thus multiple readings from the Bible are required, and at least one Gospel reading. For example, a priest is not allowed to substitute a passage from another book, the readings must be from a book from the canon of the Bible that the Catholic Church decided upon in the late 300s. That goes for the pope as well. Know too that the liturgy sprang from the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles. That means much of it is based upon the Bible. The sacrifice in the mass is a gift to us that we should receive. Do not expect that anyone can come up with better prayers than those in the liturgy. One should accept and learn from what has been given us from God. As you know I am big on a personal prayer life, and liturgical prayer can inspire personal prayer.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus did not "need" a pope, much like Jesus did not "need" any of the Apostles. But I accept God's ways knowing that His ways are far above our ways. In retrospect the wisdom of God's plan should be evident, at times someone needs to make decisions on earth, whether it be a decision about whether Baptism replaces circumcision or a dispute about whether a particular passage or book is God-breathed or whether a member of the clergy is acting properly. You have expressed a number of times that you think the priests should be able to come up with their own prayers for the Catholic mass liturgy. The mass is by far the most dominant Catholic public prayer. The mass is unifying. But most importantly Catholics consider the mass holy and what is going on as sacred. Thus multiple readings from the Bible are required, and at least one Gospel reading. For example, a priest is not allowed to substitute a passage from another book, the readings must be from a book from the canon of the Bible that the Catholic Church decided upon in the late 300s. That goes for the pope as well. Know too that the liturgy sprang from the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Apostles. That means much of it is based upon the Bible. The sacrifice in the mass is a gift to us that we should receive. Do not expect that anyone can come up with better prayers than those in the liturgy. One should accept and learn from what has been given us from God. As you know I am big on a personal prayer life, and liturgical prayer can inspire personal prayer.

The prayers in the mass were not given to the RCC by God. They are manmade prayers which is fine. If you want to keep saying the same prayers over and over again, be my guest. There is a risk in repetitious prayer becoming too easy to just mouth and not think about. Growing up Catholic I knew so many Catholics who prayed the Our Father and Hail Mary so often they could do it without thinking. My Mom always did the traditional "Bless us oh Lord and these thy gifts..." prayer at meals. She liked the fact that when I prayed at meals, I didn't recite a prayer but just prayed from the heart. Yet, after I prayed, she would have to add her "Bless us oh Lord..." to the end! It was such a habit that she couldn't feel comfortable without adding that. There are many ways the prayers of the mass could be prayed with the same meaning but different words. It's not about coming up with a better prayer. I don't think one prayer is better than another if the heart is right. However, I know the RCC loves its traditions...

Expecting a priest to stick to the canonical books is a far cry from telling him which passages he has to read. I don't have an issue though with the RCC having a prescribed set of readings but I do wonder what percentage of the Bible they cover over the years. I suspect there are books and segments of books that never make it into a reading during the mass. That is why I only attend churches that teach verse-by-verse, book-by-book because I believe the entire Word of God is profitable and don't like it when pastors pick and choose which topics they want to preach on and skip the rest. It is also critical to see passages in context and not just singled out.

Resolving disputes does not require a single person have the ultimate authority. Groups can meet and discuss to consensus. The Pope may have the final word but most matters in the RCC are decided by councils. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the RCC operates like the Presidency in America where the President listens to his cabinet and other advisors but then make the final decision himself. Unless the Pope has a strong objection, he will let the decision of the council stand. In practice, very few things are decided by the Pope and I wonder how many times in RC history the Pope has had to settle a matter by his decision? The RCC is too big for the Pope to be involved in every decision about the actions of individual clergy members. He has bishops who take care of most of those matters. I think you underestimate the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide a group to consensus and feel there has to be a tie-breaker. Regardless, I don't see Peter as having been given a permanent office that he would pass on to successors.

 

[JoeT]

The prayers in the mass were not given to the RCC by God. They are manmade prayers which is fine. If you want to keep saying the same prayers over and over again, be my guest. There is a risk in repetitious prayer becoming too easy to just mouth and not think about. Growing up Catholic I knew so many Catholics who prayed the Our Father and Hail Mary so often they could do it without thinking. My Mom always did the traditional "Bless us oh Lord and these thy gifts..." prayer at meals. She liked the fact that when I prayed at meals, I didn't recite a prayer but just prayed from the heart. Yet, after I prayed, she would have to add her "Bless us oh Lord..." to the end! It was such a habit that she couldn't feel comfortable without adding that. There are many ways the prayers of the mass could be prayed with the same meaning but different words. It's not about coming up with a better prayer. I don't think one prayer is better than another if the heart is right. However, I know the RCC loves its traditions...

Except for public and individual petitions, most of what's said during the Mass is indeed biblical.

Expecting a priest to stick to the canonical books is a far cry from telling him which passages he has to read. I don't have an issue though with the RCC having a prescribed set of readings but I do wonder what percentage of the Bible they cover over the years. I suspect there are books and segments of books that never make it into a reading during the mass. That is why I only attend churches that teach verse-by-verse, book-by-book because I believe the entire Word of God is profitable and don't like it when pastors pick and choose which topics they want to preach on and skip the rest. It is also critical to see passages in context and not just singled out.

We read certain passages in the bible daily to match the seasons of the year and the Feast days. If you've followed along daily you've read the entire New Testament and much of the Old Testament in three years.

Resolving disputes does not require a single person have the ultimate authority. Groups can meet and discuss to consensus. The Pope may have the final word but most matters in the RCC are decided by councils. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the RCC operates like the Presidency in America where the President listens to his cabinet and other advisors but then make the final decision himself. Unless the Pope has a strong objection, he will let the decision of the council stand. In practice, very few things are decided by the Pope and I wonder how many times in RC history the Pope has had to settle a matter by his decision? The RCC is too big for the Pope to be involved in every decision about the actions of individual clergy members. He has bishops who take care of most of those matters. I think you underestimate the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide a group to consensus and feel there has to be a tie-breaker. Regardless, I don't see Peter as having been given a permanent office that he would pass on to successors.

The authority to bind and loose is given the Church which was given to St. Peter and his successors.[ Matthew 16:19; 8:18]. The size of the Church isn't a concern of yours nor does it bear on the matter of authority.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Except for public and individual petitions, most of what's said during the Mass is indeed biblical.

We read certain passages in the bible daily to match the seasons of the year and the Feast days. If you've followed along daily you've read the entire New Testament and much of the Old Testament in three years.

The authority to bind and loose is given the Church which was given to St. Peter and his successors.[ Matthew 16:19; 8:18]. The size of the Church isn't a concern of yours nor does it bear on the matter of authority.

JoeT

Match the seasons? There are fall, spring, summer, and winter passages? Or do you mean all the various RC holy days? According to Catholic Answers, approximately 71.5% of the NT is covered during the mass readings (Percentage of the Bible in the Lectionary). Not bad, but not 100%. Still, you are getting them isolated from the surrounding text. Best learned in context by studying whole books.

What do you see in the Matthew passages that says Peter would have successors?

 

[JoeT]

Match the seasons? There are fall, spring, summer, and winter passages?

No, not the meteorological seasons rather the Liturgical seasons, Advent, Christmas, Lent, Triduum, Easter, etc.

Or do you mean all the various RC holy days?

I believe I said feast days.

According to Catholic Answers, approximately 71.5% of the NT is covered during the mass readings (Percentage of the Bible in the Lectionary). Not bad, but not 100%.

I'll tell the Pope you approve, but lets look at what was said;

Sunday Masses use a three-year cycle of readings, whereas daily Masses use a two-year cycle.​

It has been reported by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., that the Sunday and weekday Lectionaries contain:​

• 13.5 percent of the Old Testament (not counting the Psalms)
• 54.9 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
• 89.8 percent of the Gospels
• 71.5 percent of the entire New Testament [Ibid]

Still, you are getting them isolated from the surrounding text.​

So, Catholics should read non-isolated text in Mass?

Best learned in context by studying whole books.​

Do you read the 'The Whole Book' every day?

What do you see in the Matthew passages that says Peter would have successors?

"That thou art Peter (rock); and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"​

​

Self explanatory don't you think?

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

No, not the meteorological seasons rather the Liturgical seasons, Advent, Christmas, Lent, Triduum, Easter, etc.

I believe I said feast days.

I'll tell the Pope you approve, but lets look at what was said;

Sunday Masses use a three-year cycle of readings, whereas daily Masses use a two-year cycle.​

It has been reported by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., that the Sunday and weekday Lectionaries contain:​

• 13.5 percent of the Old Testament (not counting the Psalms)
• 54.9 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
• 89.8 percent of the Gospels
• 71.5 percent of the entire New Testament [Ibid]

So, Catholics should read non-isolated text in Mass?

Do you read the 'The Whole Book' every day?

"That thou art Peter (rock); and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"​

​

Self explanatory don't you think?

JoeT

I read at least whole chapters every time I pick up the Bible, and I read through whole books. I don't skip around and read a few passages here and a few passages there. I've lost track of how many times I have read through the Bible. The Catholic mass is not designed for teaching. It is all about the Eucharist you think imparts grace to you. Teaching is a tiny aspect of it and not in-depth at all. I have known many Catholics in my lifetime and few of them could articulate much of the Bible. You attend many Protestant churches and you see people walking in carrying a Bible. I never once saw anyone in a Catholic church carrying a Bible.

I believe "this rock" was Peter's confession of faith, not Peter himself. The church Jesus built is the body of Christ on earth regardless of which church a believer goes to. The statement about binding and loosening was later given to all the Apostles and not unique to Peter. I have written at length about the keys so won't repeat that here. However, I know you disagree so what else is there to say? I was born and raised Catholic. Baptized, confirmed, first communion, etc. That is no longer my faith. I read the Bible for myself 4 times in high school and that forever changed me. I prayed in the 9th grade to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior. That forever changed me. Let each man judge for himself.

 

[JoeT]

I read at least whole chapters every time I pick up the Bible, and I read through whole books. I don't skip around and read a few passages here and a few passages there. I've lost track of how many times I have read through the Bible. The Catholic mass is not designed for teaching. It is all about the Eucharist you think imparts grace to you. Teaching is a tiny aspect of it and not in-depth at all. I have known many Catholics in my lifetime and few of them could articulate much of the Bible. You attend many Protestant churches and you see people walking in carrying a Bible. I never once saw anyone in a Catholic church carrying a Bible.

"Still, you are getting them isolated from the surrounding text". Read the entire bible as a whole. That's your own advise.

I believe "this rock" was Peter's confession of faith, not Peter himself. The church Jesus built is the body of Christ on earth regardless of which church a believer goes to. The statement about binding and loosening was later given to all the Apostles and not unique to Peter. I have written at length about the keys so won't repeat that here. However, I know you disagree so what else is there to say? I was born and raised Catholic. Baptized, confirmed, first communion, etc. That is no longer my faith. I read the Bible for myself 4 times in high school and that forever changed me. I prayed in the 9th grade to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior. That forever changed me. Let each man judge for himself.

How is "this rock" a confession of faith? Jesus didn't need faith to build His Church, did He? It was indeed unique to S. Peter by the testimony that Peter received the keys as well. "Let each man judge for himself" was said by Luther, so now we have the Gospel according to the Great Deceiver?

JoeT

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

"Still, you are getting them isolated from the surrounding text". Read the entire bible as a whole. That's your own advise.

How is "this rock" a confession of faith? Jesus didn't need faith to build His Church, did He? It was indeed unique to S. Peter by the testimony that Peter received the keys as well. "Let each man judge for himself" was said by Luther, so now we have the Gospel according to the Great Deceiver?

JoeT

JoeT

The only quote of Luther where he says those words, is this one:

As translated in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1523 - 1526 (1967) by Theodore Gerhardt Tappert; also quoted in Theological Aesthetics: A Reader edited by Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen

• I approached the task of destroying images by first tearing them out of the heart through God’s Word and making them worthless and despised. This indeed took place before Dr. Karlstadt ever dreamed of destroying images. For when they are no longer in the heart, they can do no harm when seen with the eyes. But Dr. Karlstadt, who pays no attention to matters of the heart, has reversed the order by removing them from sight and leaving them in the heart. For he does not preach faith, nor can he preach it; unfortunately, only now do I see that. Which of these two forms of destroying images is best, I will let each man judge for himself.
  • pp. 84-85

Is there another? I don't see what this quote has to do with the subject at hand.

I believe it is good to get as much context as possible when studying Scripture. It is not practical to sit and read the entire Bible each time you study Scripture, but it is good to read through whole books. Get to know the author, his audience, the reason for his writing, and how the passage fits into the whole. That is all I am advocating. Often times a passage only makes sense when you understand the context and what lead up to it. Catholic homilies are too short to develop the context. I notice the mass only covers 55% of the non-Gospel NT text which is where most of the theology is.

What is the church? It is the body of Christ on earth. How does one become a member of that church? By faith. By confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savoir which is what Peter did. That confession is what makes one a member of Christ's church not to be confused with any denomination or organization. I am talking about the Church Universal which is not limited to any one body. Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the church and Paul wrote the church is built on "foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Notice Paul doesn't say the church is built on Peter. Peter calls Jesus the chief cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7). In so doing, he makes no mention of himself as the "rock" on which the church is built.

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:4-10)

This would have been a great time for Peter to mention he is the "rock" on which the church is built but he only mentions Christ. He calls all of us "living stones" and a "holy priesthood." He does not say he is the only stone and that there will be a special group of clergy that constitute a new priesthood.

I believe Peter was a leader and even among the twelve but not in a pope-like office and not with successors.

 

[Valletta]

I read at least whole chapters every time I pick up the Bible, and I read through whole books. I don't skip around and read a few passages here and a few passages there. I've lost track of how many times I have read through the Bible. The Catholic mass is not designed for teaching. It is all about the Eucharist you think imparts grace to you. Teaching is a tiny aspect of it and not in-depth at all. I have known many Catholics in my lifetime and few of them could articulate much of the Bible. You attend many Protestant churches and you see people walking in carrying a Bible. I never once saw anyone in a Catholic church carrying a Bible.

I believe "this rock" was Peter's confession of faith, not Peter himself. The church Jesus built is the body of Christ on earth regardless of which church a believer goes to. The statement about binding and loosening was later given to all the Apostles and not unique to Peter. I have written at length about the keys so won't repeat that here. However, I know you disagree so what else is there to say? I was born and raised Catholic. Baptized, confirmed, first communion, etc. That is no longer my faith. I read the Bible for myself 4 times in high school and that forever changed me. I prayed in the 9th grade to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior. That forever changed me. Let each man judge for himself.

The focus of the mass is, of course, on Jesus. But after the Gospel reading (the priest does three small sign of the cross, the intent is so that he properly proclaims the Gospel) the priest gives a homily. This is a teaching time so that we all go out and live the Word of God in our lives. Jesus told us to "Do this," meaning the blessing and breaking of the bread, His words of consecration, and distribution to the people rather than telling us to give a class on the Bible. Our parish does offer Bible classes. I think it's wonderful that you can read so much of the Bible at one time, most people don't have the attention span. I was right around the same age when I lost my Catholic faith, that happened to many young people who did not have a prayer life. The Bible can be a great enhancement for prayer. My habit is to pick up a Bible, pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment, read a passage, and then pray to God with the passage in mind.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The focus of the mass is, of course, on Jesus. But after the Gospel reading (the priest does three small sign of the cross, the intent is so that he properly proclaims the Gospel) the priest gives a homily. This is a teaching time so that we all go out and live the Word of God in our lives. Jesus told us to "Do this," meaning the blessing and breaking of the bread, His words of consecration, and distribution to the people rather than telling us to give a class on the Bible. Our parish does offer Bible classes. I think it's wonderful that you can read so much of the Bible at one time, most people don't have the attention span. I was right around the same age when I lost my Catholic faith, that happened to many young people who did not have a prayer life. The Bible can be a great enhancement for prayer. My habit is to pick up a Bible, pray to the Holy Spirit for discernment, read a passage, and then pray to God with the passage in mind.

Jesus also told us to "Go and make disciples" which involves teaching more than the Gospel. The reason I favor teaching through whole books of the Bible is that all of Scripture is profitable for everyone. I don't want to pick and choose what people hear and are taught. The Holy Spirit inspired every word of the Bible so I believe in teaching every word. A lot of Paul's epistles start out with doctrine and then move to application. It's good to learn the doctrine as that lays the foundation for the application. Too many churches today skip doctrine and only preach application. People need to learn both. The doctrine gives you the foundation that also anchors your faith. Just teaching application is like giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. My goal is that everyone can read the Scriptures, understand them, and apply them. That's not to say some men aren't given the gift of teaching and can do a better job explaining things and helping others to learn. Still, most of Scripture is easily understood and does not require a seminary education to understand. I believe in strong teaching on Sunday mornings because most people won't attend other classes offered during the week. If you aren't teaching them the Word in-depth on Sunday mornings, they won't do so on their own.