Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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..
Did Christ follow a man?Do you follow Christ or do you follow Matthew and Luke? Christ or men?
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.
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.
wrong about what? Like Peter being the chief cornerstone?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.
NewMan99 said:Josiah said:We're in agreement here, my brother...
NewMan99 said:Josiah said:Yes, Jesus founded His church.
Yes, it is His Body.
Yes, Paul was persecuting such.
NewMan99 said:Josiah said: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.
NewMan99 said:Josiah said:Paul was persecuting PEOPLE - Christian people.
NewMan99 said:Josiah said:Christian people are - collectively - the church catholic.
Which is His Body, His Church.
NewMan99 said:Yes - but again there was not division, sectarianism, or denominationalism either.
NewMan99 said: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).
NewMan99 said:Josiah said:
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.
NewMan99 said:Josiah said: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.
NewMan99 said: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.
NewMa99 said:Josiah said: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.
NewMan99 said:Josiah said: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.
NewMen99 said:Josiah said: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.
NewMen99 said: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).
Then I guess we are evenI 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.
Did Christ follow a man?
Our you saying the one true Orthodox Church does not have a leadership?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.
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.
There is no doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
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
In fairness to NewMan, there is an abundance of Protestants who have no problem with this language
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?