Peter Is Not The Rock!

[beamishboy]

You are creating a false dichotomy to suit your purpose. Unam Sanctam is a document issued to address conflict with state authorities. It declares that the path to salvation is not found by being subject to the king, but rather by being a member of the body of Christ. It is specifically addressing a conflict between church and state, not a proclamation to all past, present and future Christians. This is why contextual understanding is important in all areas, not just Scripture. Similar to knowing that in order to understand one of Paul's epistles and its intent, one must understand the specific congregation it was addressed to and the issue it was addressing.

A good understanding of exactly what papal infallibility is and is not, the differences between an ex-cathedra statement by a pope, a church council, a papal encyclical would be more than helpful in developing a correct understanding as well.

I have made this correlation before, and I will make it again. Visit an atheist site and see how they isolate and twist individual scriptures to 'prove' the error in Scripture, and seek to understand how similar the tactics they use are to the one you're employing here.

What you have written above is total nonsense by RC standards. Let me quote to you the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

Of course the Encyclopaedia then goes on to defend the Bull against non-RC criticisms but the above is a direct quotation of what the RC position is.

I can understand why you want to limit the Bull to only the political context at that time. But do you want me to quote specific paragraphs from the Bull to show you that it is of universal application even if you do not believe the above quotation from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia. Or is this point another disunity among RCs?

Dear Narnia,

Thank you for your help on Unam Sanctum. Given the number of times Beamishboy and Simon have upbraided Catholics for quoting without context, it is a trifle surprising to find them doing the same thing. I guess it shows we're all fallible, unless we are the pope speaking ex cathedra - which I take it none of us is???!

Peace,

Anglian

I think I will ignore Anglian's inflammatory remarks which stem from a total ignorance of the significance of the Unam Sanctam and his dogged insistence of taking the side of RCs and vilifying Protestants unjustly especially in the light of what I've quoted from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. His attack on Simon when he's not even here is a reflection of how simple it is for us to talk about love and Christian charity when our actions show a different heart. I will acknowledge that Anglian has shown great support for non-Protestants and will defend RCs even when he is totally ignorant of the subject but his treatment of Simon who is not even here is very much regretted but that is understandable because Simon is Protestant. I understand Orthodox Christians better now.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

I am still not seeing you quoting the context as Narnia did.

Neither am I seeing any of the non Catholics here addressing the question of what Christ's renaming Simon 'Peter' meant if not what the Catholics say.

peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

I am still not seeing you quoting the context as Narnia did.

Neither am I seeing any of the non Catholics here addressing the question of what Christ's renaming Simon 'Peter' meant if not what the Catholics say.

peace,

Anglian

I don't think I should waste my time trying to let you see anything. I have already quoted the Catholic Encyclopaedia that says that the Bull simply means that you have to be in the RC church to have salvation. It's a NECESSITY for salvation.

In all sincerity, I don't think you will see anything I write as long as I'm neither RC nor Orthodox. It took me so long to understand your position. But the scales have fallen from my eyes. If you are unable to see anything, so be it. But I do not take kindly to your accusation that Simon and I take quotation out of context. That is a lie I view with contempt.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear Beamishboy,

I am still not seeing you quoting the context as Narnia did.

Neither am I seeing any of the non Catholics here addressing the question of what Christ's renaming Simon 'Peter' meant if not what the Catholics say.
peace,
Anglian

Greetings. How do you view it. And what about my earlier post. "peter" was an Apostle to the Circumcision [the Judeans] which were different from the "Lost sheep of Israel" who were put away by YHWH in the OT. Is that not correct?

1 Corin 1:10 I am beseeching yet of ye brothers! thru the name of the Lord of us Jesus Christ that the same ye may be saying all and no may be among ye schisms/divisions ye may yet having been equipped in the same Mind/noi <3563 and the same purpose/opinion/gnwmh <1106> [#1106 used in Reve 17:13, 17]

Reve 17:13 These one-purpose/gnwmhn <1106> are having, and the power and authority of them to the wild beast they are giving....................................17 For the God gives into the hearts of them to do the purpose/gnwmhn <1106> of Him and to do one purpose/gnwmhn <1106> and to give the kingdom of them to the wild-beast until shall be being finished [*finish] the Words [*declarations] of the God.

NKJV) 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you, but [that] you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

NKJV) Revelation 17:17 "For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

3563. nous nooce probably from the base of 1097; the intellect, i.e. mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication, meaning:--mind, understanding. Compare 5590

1106. gnome gno'-may from 1097; cognition, i.e. (subjectively) opinion, or (objectively) resolve (counsel, consent, etc.):--advice, + agree, judgment, mind, purpose, will.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Alas, like so many who hurl harsh words at others, you are unduly sensitive when others point out you doing what you accuse others of. Calling people liars and accusing others of writing total nonsense is, no doubt, a function of your age, and should, no doubt, be overlooked - which I am happy to do, whatever your attitude.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Greetings. How do you view it. And what about my earliter post. "peter" was an Apostle to the Circumcision [the Judeans] which were different from the "Lost sheep of Israel" put away by YHWH in the OT. Is that not correct?

1..

Dear LLOJ,

yes, I think your comments right. My own view would be that Christ called Peter the Rock because it was upon the Rock of his declaration of Faith that He founded His Church. This is the same understanding as many of the ECFs, and it is from this that the primacy of the See of St. Peter arises. The difference between ourselves and the RCC is over the implications of that 'primacy'. We hold that it does not extend to universal jurisdiction.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

So, Narnia, as you can see, the RC position is that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". This means Protestants and Orthodox Christians have no salvation. Whatever context the Bull could have been written, the words did not limit it to monarchs and rulers. It says "every human creature". Either the Bull is wrong or you are wrong to think that no apostolic church will claim that it has monopoly on salvation.

You can only bring in political turmoil (the context you talked about) if you are saying that the poor Pope wrote the Bull in haste. In other words, the Bull is one huge mistake. It should be repealed. How else can the context help you? That is what I honestly fail to see.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I also found this interesting. The greek word # 5748 is in the Singular, not the plural. And why does the RNKJ use "kepha" in this verse?

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

NKJV) Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter,...........

RNKJ) Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Kepha,........

T-R Of the yet 12 Apostles the names is/estin <5748> these first Simon the one being said Peter.................

Textus Rec.) Matthew 10:2 twn de dwdeka apostolwn ta onomata estin tauta prwtoV simwn o legomenoV petroV kai andreaV o adelfoV autou iakwboV o tou zebedaiou kai iwannhV o adelfoV autou

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So, Narnia, as you can see, the RC position is that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". This means Protestants and Orthodox Christians have no salvation.

Did you ever read this announcement?

http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/MOM%2008%202007.htm
The Papacy and Its Unholy State: A Worldwide W a k e - u p C a l l to Orthodox Leaders

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective." This was the Pontiff&#8217;s latest manner of insulting Jesus Christ and His True Church...............

 

[CardinalSin]

So, Narnia, as you can see, the RC position is that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". This means Protestants and Orthodox Christians have no salvation. Whatever context the Bull could have been written, the words did not limit it to monarchs and rulers. It says "every human creature". Either the Bull is wrong or you are wrong to think that no apostolic church will claim that it has monopoly on salvation.

You can only bring in political turmoil (the context you talked about) if you are saying that the poor Pope wrote the Bull in haste. In other words, the Bull is one huge mistake. It should be repealed. How else can the context help you? That is what I honestly fail to see.

Dear beamishboy,

Your language is particularly strong but like Anglian, I will attribute that to the restlessness of youth. I find it amusing because while it is true that many Catholics do believe that it is solely in Mother Church that we can find salvation, very few of us will say it publicly. I know you are going to accuse us of hypocrisy but you will do the same in years to come when you have learned to measure your speech according to the audience.

The usual analogy is Noah's Ark. The Catholic church is the ark that grants salvation. Such an imagery of course denotes destruction for those outside the ark.

I would encourage everyone to enter that ark.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear beamishboy,

Your language is particularly strong but like Anglian, I will attribute that to the restlessness of youth. I find it amusing because while it is true that many Catholics do believe that it is solely in Mother Church that we can find salvation, very few of us will say it publicly. I know you are going to accuse us of hypocrisy but you will do the same in years to come when you have learned to measure your speech according to the audience.

The usual analogy is Noah's Ark. The Catholic church is the ark that grants salvation. Such an imagery of course denotes destruction for those outside the ark.

I would encourage everyone to enter that ark.

Yoo hoo!!!! Folksies and blokesies!!!!! Come one, come all!!!! The beamishboy is vindicated!!!!! Even a Cardinal in red surplice has agreed with me. It's not just the Catholic Encyclopaedia that agrees with me but a living Cardinal too!!!!!!!!

So the RC church does teach that only it is the ark amidst a raging world-wide flood. The Unam Sanctam of a supposedly infallible Pope says so in plain English, the Catholic Encyclopaedia supports it and a living Cardinal affirms it.

Cardinal, I hope you will make me a Doctor of Canon Law. Hehe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The usual analogy is Noah's Ark. The Catholic church is the ark that grants salvation. Such an imagery of course denotes destruction for those outside the ark.

I would encourage everyone to enter that ark.

Greetings. That is of course your own denomination's view.

Matthew 24:38 For as they were in the days, those, to-the before the flood eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until which day entered Noah into the ark,

Revelation 14:1 And I saw and Behold! [*the] a lamb-kin standing upon the mount Zion and with it a hundred forty four thousands having the name [*of it and the name] of the father of it having been written on the fourheads of them.

 

[Rhamiel]

this thread is amazing!!!!!
this is just so out there, i really love this thread so much, I am haveing a great time

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings. That is of course your own denomination's view.

Matthew 24:38 For as they were in the days, those, to-the before the flood eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until which day entered Noah into the ark,

Revelation 14:1 And I saw and Behold! [*the] a lamb-kin standing upon the mount Zion and with it a hundred forty four thousands having the name [*of it and the name] of the father of it having been written on the fourheads of them.

Oh, I forgot, Peter of the RCs also mentions Noah

1 Peter 3:20 To ones being stubborn once when awaited the out of the God, patience, in days of Noah of being constructed an Ark into which few, this being Eight souls, were saved thru water.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah yet cries-out over the Israel "if-ever may be the number of the sons of Israel as the sand of the Sea, the Remnant shall be being Saved". [Daniel 12:1]

Revelation 14:1 And I saw and Behold! [*the] a lamb-kin standing upon the mount Zion and with it a hundred forty four thousands having the name [*of it and the name] of the father of it having been written on the fourheads of them.

 

[Rick Otto]

Me too, Rhami.
Go to iconbusters.
You'll laugh your scapular off.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Me too, Rhami.
Go to iconbusters.
You'll laugh your scapular off.

One thing I find interesting with the greek is how the prefixes are added to root words. This form of the greek word "remnant" is used ONLY in Romans 9:27 and sometimes I wish these words would be better parsed in Bible versions. Interesting.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah yet cries-out over the Israel "if-ever may be the number of the sons of Israel as the sand of the sea, the Remnant/kata-leimma <2640> shall be being Saved". [Daniel 12:1]

Reve 12:17 And is wrought the dragon upon the woman and came away to do battle with the remnant/rest/loipwn <3062> of the seed of her, the ones keeping the commandments of the God and having the testimony of [*of the] Jesus [*Christ].

2640. kata-leimma kat-al'-ime-mah from 2641; a remainder, i.e. (by implication) a few:--remnant.

2641. kata-leipo kat-al-i'-po from 2596 and 3007; to leave down, i.e. behind; by implication, to abandon, have remaining:--forsake, leave, reserve.

2596. kata kat-ah' a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations
3007. leipo li'-po a primary verb; to leave, i.e. (intransitively or passively) to fail or be absent:--be destitute (wanting), lack.
3062. loipoy loy-poy' masculine plural of a derivative of 3007; remaining ones:--other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest.

 

[narnia59]

What you have written above is total nonsense by RC standards. Let me quote to you the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

Of course the Encyclopaedia then goes on to defend the Bull against non-RC criticisms but the above is a direct quotation of what the RC position is.

How can you determine the RC position, yet only pull out one statement and ignore the rest of the direct quotations? Like this one immediately following the sentence you quoted. "The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority."

It also says this -- "The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe."

Even if your personal interpretation were close to valid, your assertion that it would produce a sort of 'conflict' between the church teaching that non-Catholics can indeed be saved and the charism of infallibility of the papal office still shows a lack of understanding as to how that charism is exercised.

There is a big difference between reading in context with a heart to seek to truly understand what another believes, regardless of whether one agrees with it, and reading to find daggers to fling that have no concern with actual truth. I would suggest you limit your studies to the first approach.

 

[narnia59]

Yoo hoo!!!! Folksies and blokesies!!!!! Come one, come all!!!! The beamishboy is vindicated!!!!! Even a Cardinal in red surplice has agreed with me. It's not just the Catholic Encyclopaedia that agrees with me but a living Cardinal too!!!!!!!!

So the RC church does teach that only it is the ark amidst a raging world-wide flood. The Unam Sanctam of a supposedly infallible Pope says so in plain English, the Catholic Encyclopaedia supports it and a living Cardinal affirms it.

Cardinal, I hope you will make me a Doctor of Canon Law. Hehe.

What the church actually teaches is that by virtue of the one baptism we profess to believe in, all of those baptized into Christ regardless of whether they are in direct communion with us or not are within the bounds of the Catholic church, and may indeed be saved.

In other words, you can disown the family and no longer sit at the table, but you cannot cease to be family.

And you really do need to understand the charism of infallability. It has nothing to do with Unam Sanctam.

 

[Rhamiel]

iconbusters? is that a thread on GT?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

iconbusters? is that a thread on GT?

I prefer the peter vs paul debate

1 Kings 19:18 And I left/07604 sha'ar in Israel seven of thousands, all of the knees which not they bowed to Baal, and every of the mouth which not kissed to him.

Romans 11:4 "But what is saying the divine-answer? 'I left/kat-elipon <2641> (5627) to Myself Seven Thousand Men/andraV <435>, who not bow a knee to Baal'".

Reve 7:3 saying: "No ye should be injuring the land, neither the sea, neither the trees, untill we should be sealing the bond-servants of the God of us on the foreheads of them"
4 And I hear the number of the ones having been sealed a hundred [*and] forty four thousands having been sealed out of every tribe of sons of Israel.