Peter Is Not The Rock!

[squint]

Facts have sources please.

When RCC adherents try to tell many of us other denoms we have "imperfect communion" they should be aware of their organizations official measures to MOST of us no matter what the RCC organization puts out up front to appease their masses.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43999731&postcount=119

Read the thread in reverse from the above post to see how we 'finally' came to a 'truthful' conclusion from this particular (learned, astute and polite) RCC adherent:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6917340&page=12

and here's your warning label:

USE EXTREME CAUTION: The person you are in dialog with is by RCC doctrinal requirements, a known heretical apostate and and information gathered during the discourse of dialog may be hazardous to your own right standing with RCC doctrines.

enjoy!

squint

 

[beamishboy]

When RCC adherents try to tell many of us other denoms we have "imperfect communion" they should be aware of their organizations official measures to MOST of us no matter what the RCC organization puts out up front to appease their masses.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43999731&postcount=119

Read the thread in reverse from the above post to see how we 'finally' came to a 'truthful' conclusion from this particular (learned, astute and polite) RCC adherent:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6917340&page=12

and here's your warning label:

USE EXTREME CAUTION: The person you are in dialog with is by RCC doctrinal requirements, a known heretical apostate and and information gathered during the discourse of dialog may be hazardous to your own right standing with RCC doctrines.

enjoy!

squint

Wow, thanks for increasing the beamishboy's arsenal of weaponry. I think I should read the Council of Trent and other documents if I really want more ammunition. Every line I read, I acquire a bomb for future use. As it is, the beamishboy has enough nuclear warheads. Hehe.

 

[Rick Otto]

I acquire a bomb for future use.

Warn me well in advance of any pre-emptive strikes.

 

[lionroar0]

When RCC adherents try to tell many of us other denoms we have "imperfect communion" they should be aware of their organizations official measures to MOST of us no matter what the RCC organization puts out up front to appease their masses.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43999731&postcount=119

Read the thread in reverse from the above post to see how we 'finally' came to a 'truthful' conclusion from this particular (learned, astute and polite) RCC adherent:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6917340&page=12

and here's your warning label:

USE EXTREME CAUTION: The person you are in dialog with is by RCC doctrinal requirements, a known heretical apostate and and information gathered during the discourse of dialog may be hazardous to your own right standing with RCC doctrines.

enjoy!

squint

A faulty premise will lead to faulty conclusions
Peace

 

[beamishboy]

Warn me well in advance of any pre-emptive strikes.

Heaven forbid that the beamishboy should ever strike one of the Commanders in the beamishboy's army. The beamishboy won't ever strike anyone condemned by the Unam Sanctam. Hehe.

 

[lionroar0]

The reformers taught that fiducial faith was the sole cause of justification.
This prompted the council of trent to declare that side by side with faith, the following acts of disposition must also be present:
- Fear Divine justice;
- Hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ;
- The beginning of the love of God;
- Hate and detestation of sin;
- Purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life."

That is really all that is 'required' for initial justification.
That said however, it is inherently part of faith that the believer seek to better understand what they believe, and as they grow in understanding they will take on additional burdens - to those who are given much, much is expected.
Additional burdens such as the requirement to help one another, or to preach the gospel, etc ...

Doing those sorts of things do not justify us, but failure to act as we know Jesus intended for Christians to act can condemn us.

It is a matter of catholic teaching that one does not need to "do" anything to be saved, but they can put their salvation at risk by failing to act as a Christian once they are saved (re. Matthew 25).

enjoy

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

The reformers taught that fiducial faith was the sole cause of justification.
This prompted the council of trent to declare that side by side with faith, the following acts of disposition must also be present:
- Fear Divine justice;
- Hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ;
- The beginning of the love of God;
- Hate and detestation of sin;
- Purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life."

That is really all that is 'required' for initial justification.
That said however, it is inherently part of faith that the believer seek to better understand what they believe, and as they grow in understanding they will take on additional burdens - to those who are given much, much is expected.
Additional burdens such as the requirement to help one another, or to preach the gospel, etc ...

Doing those sorts of things do not justify us, but failure to act as we know Jesus intended for Christians to act can condemn us.

It is a matter of catholic teaching that one does not need to "do" anything to be saved, but they can put their salvation at risk by failing to act as a Christian once they are saved (re. Matthew 25).

enjoy

Peace

So how does Jesus indtend for people to act? Why would actions keep you saved if actions never got you saved?

 

[Anglian]

So how does Jesus indtend for people to act? Why would actions keep you saved if actions never got you saved?

Dear MamaZ,

Do you hold that once we have received Christ we are saved whatever we do?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[AmericanCatholic]

So how does Jesus indtend for people to act?

Probably like this, this, this, or this, to name a few.

Why would actions keep you saved if actions never got you saved?

Something to do with this I imagine.

 

[visionary]

Why would actions keep you saved if actions never got you saved?

Walking in the Holy Spirit will produce results, fruits of the spirit. It is more evidence of the work inside by the Lord. The Lord gets all the glory for it is Him whom strengthens us. It is He who works through us. It is He who does the Father's Will. We have died so that He might live. We are the TEmple of God. It is not I but Him. Actions never got anyone saved. God saves. God teaches us the saved life, that we might live it. IT is the narrow way, God knows the Way.

Now back to OP... Peter.. was it him whom the Messiah was entrusting or the message?

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

Do you hold that once we have received Christ we are saved whatever we do?

Peace,

Anglian

I hold to that once we have Received Christ it is Him that is in us willing us to do as the Father wills. For we have the incorruptable seed in us. Because of this incorrptable seed in us fruits will be seen. We do not work for fruit. It just springs up from the incorruptable seed. This is why Jesus tells us that we shall know them by their Fruit.. For a bad tree cannot produce good and lasting fruit.

 

[Anglian]

I hold to that once we have Received Christ it is Him that is in us willing us to do as the Father wills. For we have the incorruptable seed in us. Because of this incorrptable seed in us fruits will be seen. We do not work for fruit. It just springs up from the incorruptable seed. This is why Jesus tells us that we shall know them by their Fruit.. For a bad tree cannot produce good and lasting fruit.

Dear Mamaz,

Although we might hold different terminology, I see nothing here that differs from what my own, or the Catholic Church teaches.

We can, however, through our own efforts, renounce Christ and embrace the work of the Evil One.

Going back to the OP, I am still wondering what our answer is to Narnia's question. Christ renamed Simon 'the Rock' and later told him, and the disciples, that He would build His Church on that rock. My own Church holds that it was Peter's confession of faith which was the rock, even as many of the ECFs did. But that does not deal with the question of why Christ renamed Simon 'Rock' and what He meant by it. The Catholic tradition offers an explanation, even if it is one others do not quite accept as they do.

What would your own answer be?

peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

I hold to that once we have Received Christ it is Him that is in us willing us to do as the Father wills. For we have the incorruptable seed in us. Because of this incorrptable seed in us fruits will be seen. We do not work for fruit. It just springs up from the incorruptable seed. This is why Jesus tells us that we shall know them by their Fruit.. For a bad tree cannot produce good and lasting fruit.

You do not believe it is possible that once we are in Christ, we can cease to bear fruit?

 

[narnia59]

When RCC adherents try to tell many of us other denoms we have "imperfect communion" they should be aware of their organizations official measures to MOST of us no matter what the RCC organization puts out up front to appease their masses.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43999731&postcount=119

Read the thread in reverse from the above post to see how we 'finally' came to a 'truthful' conclusion from this particular (learned, astute and polite) RCC adherent:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6917340&page=12

and here's your warning label:

USE EXTREME CAUTION: The person you are in dialog with is by RCC doctrinal requirements, a known heretical apostate and and information gathered during the discourse of dialog may be hazardous to your own right standing with RCC doctrines.

enjoy!

squint

Squint, I admit that I do better when I don't have to piece together a lot of different things to get to the point. So if I miss the point, you may have to be more direct.

It seems that our engagement began when you stated this:

I think it's appropriate that the RCC 'claims' physical/flesh transferance succession from Peter and then to other flesh men, and then use that supposed authority to CONTINAULLY CONDEMN you and I and any other that will not 'kiss the ring' and 'bow the knee.' And their proponents are quite adamant about reigning that supposed authority of THEM over us all as well.

It now seems to have headed towards a discussion of automatic excommunication.

Perhaps I need to make sure I understand terms here, because whenyou say CONDEMN, in my mind that refers to a pronouncement about the ultimate salvation of a person. Is that what you mean by condemn?

 

[squint]

Squint, I admit that I do better when I don't have to piece together a lot of different things to get to the point. So if I miss the point, you may have to be more direct.

It seems that our engagement began when you stated this:

"I think it's appropriate that the RCC 'claims' physical/flesh transferance succession from Peter and then to other flesh men, and then use that supposed authority to CONTINAULLY CONDEMN you and I and any other that will not 'kiss the ring' and 'bow the knee.' And their proponents are quite adamant about reigning that supposed authority of THEM over us all as well."

It now seems to have headed towards a discussion of automatic excommunication.

You can again spin the conversation anyway you like. What the RCC does with Peter they do with nearly every subsequent move they make. NOTICE THE CAPITAL LETTERS above which are now BOLDED.

Perhaps I need to make sure I understand terms here, because whenyou say CONDEMN, in my mind that refers to a pronouncement about the ultimate salvation of a person. Is that what you mean by condemn?

Let's see...Salvation=Condemn? Nope!

enjoy!

squint

 

[narnia59]

You can again spin the conversation anyway you like. What the RCC does with Peter they do with nearly every subsequent move they make. NOTICE THE CAPITAL LETTERS above which are now BOLDED.


Let's see...Salvation=Condemn? Nope!

enjoy!

squint

My intent has never been to spin, simply to understand.

You're going to have to help me with my confusion though. You referenced Unam Sanctam, which had been interpreted to be that salvation only occurs by being subject to the Pope. You have referenced 'continually condemn', and then referenced a thread about excommunication.

The position I've taken in this thread that you seem to disagree with is that the Catholic church does not teach that one must be formally in the Catholic church in order to be saved.

I am having a hard time correlating what I've said to what you've said. So, let me make sure I understand. Do you disagree with my position as stated in the paragraph above, and is that what your references are addressing?

 

[MamaZ]

Can Christ fail to bear fruit? For it is He in us that produces the fruit.

 

[squint]

My intent has never been to spin, simply to understand.

You're going to have to help me with my confusion though. You referenced Unam Sanctam, which had been interpreted to be that salvation only occurs by being subject to the Pope. You have referenced 'continually condemn', and then referenced a thread about excommunication.

The position I've taken in this thread that you seem to disagree with is that the Catholic church does not teach that one must be formally in the Catholic church in order to be saved.

Not true at all with the RCC. If you read the links previously provided, the RCC claim to COMPLETE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY (the canons are an example) which the RCC 'claims' they and they ALONE have through 'physical succession' of the laying on of hands of authority THROUGH Peter is then VAUNTED over all the other 'believers' NO MATTER WHAT.

The 'extent' of that vaunting STARTS with the RCC claim to COMPLETE AUTHORITY that they as a group CLAIM for them and DISclaim for ALL others IF they are not UNDER the authority of their pope.

I am having a hard time correlating what I've said to what you've said. So, let me make sure I understand. Do you disagree with my position as stated in the paragraph above, and is that what your references are addressing?

The links provided SHOW that it IS the promotion of the RCC that any who KNOWINGLY, OPENLY DISAGREE with ANY SINGLE ONE of the Canons are in fact excommunicated via promulgation. So the RCC claim to IMPERFECT communion is patently FALSE. Yet they hold this out as TRUE. The fact of the matter is their claim is SO NOT TRUE because as usual 'the devil is in the details.' Once the DETAILS are shown, open knowing disagreement(s) THEN excommunication via promulgation is the result and there is NO imperfect communion in excommunication via promulgation.

I consider their statements misleading to the masses. There 'real' positions have not changed. They STILL promote CONDEMNATION as usual, and very particularly to believers outside their organization.

enjoy!

squint

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear Mamaz,

Although we might hold different terminology, I see nothing here that differs from what my own, or the Catholic Church teaches.

We can, however, through our own efforts, renounce Christ and embrace the work of the Evil One.

Going back to the OP, I am still wondering what our answer is to Narnia's question. Christ renamed Simon 'the Rock' and later told him, and the disciples, that He would build His Church on that rock. My own Church holds that it was Peter's confession of faith which was the rock, even as many of the ECFs did. But that does not deal with the question of why Christ renamed Simon 'Rock' and what He meant by it. The Catholic tradition offers an explanation, even if it is one others do not quite accept as they do.

What would your own answer be?

peace,

Anglian

Greetings Anglian. Exactly what does the greek word #4074 mean. I looked up the places that greek word # 2059 is used and found 3 places. I am going to work on this.

John 1:42 and he led him toward the Jesus in-gazing yet to him the Jesus said "thou are simwn <4613> the son of iwna <2495> thou shall be being called/klhqhsh <2564> (5701) khfaV <2786> [which is being translated/interpreted/ermhneuetai <2059> (5743) petroV <4074]

John 9:7 And He said to him "be going away! wash thou! into the pool of the silwam <4611>" [which is being translated/interpreted/ermhneuetai <2059> (5743) 'having been commissioned'/apestalmenoV <649> (5772)] And he came away and he washes and came seeing.

Hebrew 7:2 To whom also a tenth from all parts Abraham first indeed [being translated/interpreted/ermhneuomenoV <2059> (5746) King of Righteousness, thereafter yet also King of Salem which is King of Peace.]

 

[narnia59]

Not true at all with the RCC. If you read the links previously provided, the RCC claim to COMPLETE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY (the canons are an example) which the RCC 'claims' they and they ALONE have through 'physical succession' of the laying on of hands of authority THROUGH Peter is then VAUNTED over all the other 'believers' NO MATTER WHAT.

The 'extent' of that vaunting STARTS with the RCC claim to COMPLETE AUTHORITY that they as a group CLAIM for them and DISclaim for ALL others IF they are not UNDER the authority of their pope.


The links provided SHOW that it IS the promotion of the RCC that any who KNOWINGLY, OPENLY DISAGREE with ANY SINGLE ONE of the Canons are in fact excommunicated via promulgation. So the RCC claim to IMPERFECT communion is patently FALSE. Yet they hold this out as TRUE. The fact of the matter is their claim is SO NOT TRUE because as usual 'the devil is in the details.' Once the DETAILS are shown, open knowing disagreement(s) THEN excommunication via promulgation is the result and there is NO imperfect communion in excommunication via promulgation.

I consider their statements misleading to the masses. There 'real' positions have not changed. They STILL promote CONDEMNATION as usual, and very particularly to believers outside their organization.

enjoy!

squint

Squint, when I said "The position I've taken in this thread that you seem to disagree with is that the Catholic church does not teach that one must be formally in the Catholic church in order to be saved."


Your response is "Not true at all with the RCC".


You then proceed to talk about excommunication. Of course if you're not in communion with us, you're "excommunicated". It's sort of what the term basically means.


You, however, seem to be of the opinion that because you are "excommunicated", the church says you cannot be saved. That would be incorrect. This is why I'm having difficulty with your contention that my statement is not true from the perspective of the Catholic church.