Peter Is Not The Rock!

[MoNiCa4316]

MamaZ
that is true, but many things in the OT forshadow what happens in the NT

great minds think alike?

our answers are so similar for everything hehehe

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

well I agree

btw about priests... our priests (Catholic and Orthodox) have a different function than the OT priests.. they don't go to God for us, but they bring to us His Body and Blood..which is changed by the Holy Spirit from the bread and wine.

I myself do not believe in the "real presence" but then of course that is a different topic.

 

[MamaZ]

Priests offering sacrafice for sin is no one of them. For the NT is the OT revealed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Priests offering sacrafice for sin is no one of them. For the NT is the OT revealed.

That is what the word "revelation" means

Luke 2:32 A light into a from-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of Nations and glory of people of Thee Israel

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV <602> of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants, which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness. And He signifies commissioning thru the messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John.

 

[lionroar0]

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

What canon 9 of the council of Trent is speaking about is faith as an intellectual assent.

For example: Looking for conclusive proof of the resurrection. In our times that usually means conclusive scientific evidence.

We are saved by Grace. We are not saved by our good works but if we belive the gospel message then, we are to do what the Gospels says.

To live a Christian live. Feed the hungry, take care of those less fortunate then us, evangalize, ect....

Having faith does not mean sit on our bum and do nothing.


Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For example: Looking for conclusive proof of the resurrection. In our times that usually means conclusive scientific evidence.

The Jews, Muslims and atheists also do not read the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation which shows proof JESUS is Alive and Well thank you very much.

John 19:30 When then the Jesus had received/got the vinegar, He said "It has been finished/tetelestai <5055> (5769)"! and reclining the head He gives-up the spirit.

Reve 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fall toward the feet of Him as dead, and he places the right-*hand of Him on me saying: "No be fearing! I am the first and the last
18 and the living-one! And I became dead, and behold! living am-I into the ages to-the ages [*Amen]. And I am having the keys of the death and of the hades

 

[narnia59]

Excommunication is at least in part condemnation. As we know from Word when one is forced to measure condemnation to OTHERS they do in fact bring that same into their own heart. Don't have that issue for myself.

Condemnation in what sense? Certainly not claiming an individual cannot be saved, as you&#8217;ve been professing. Does scripture not provide the concept that the church (not individuals) can discipline its members and rightly judge whether teachings are true? I understand that you do not believe yourself to espouse false teachings, but again, we are viewing this through the eyes of what the church teaches and believes.

Debateable point whether or not you are allowed to make that measure... I do know without any uncertainty that God is not now nor will He ever be AGAINST loving my neighbors and even my enemies as myself. And when LOVE does transpire those who DO SO both know God and are BORN OF GOD...no matter what form of Jesus is painted across their lips and no matter how many doctrinal impositions are applied to try and STOP that working. No amount of the doctrines of damnation, permanent or temporary, no amounts of condemnation permanent or temporary will BE ABLE stop that working of Him in the hearts of mankind. IF doctrines are in place to STOP THAT from transpiring they will assuredly FAIL.

I am not sure what discipline has to do with &#8216;not loving&#8217;? The purpose of discipline is to correct in love. Whether the person being disciplined accepts this, or views it in that regard &#8211; again, we&#8217;re speaking about how the church views this. It certainly isn&#8217;t in the view of trying to stop the love of God from working.

It seems you have the view that regardless of an individual's behavior or what they profess to believe, the church has no scriptural authority to discipline, and the thought of doing so infringes upon Christian love.


And again, can you provide any Catholic documentation that equates excommunication with being damned, either permanently or temporarily? (And how can one even be &#8216;temporarily&#8217; damned? )

My own back brother? How is it you call me brother apart from communion? I'm sure you know that to even dialog with publically denounced excommunicated people an RCC member may bring sentence upon themselves as well?

No, I am not 'personally' publically banned. I only read THE RCC's measures to make THEIR determinations. It really does not matter to me one whit what kind of blockades they have erected against me or our fellow man. God's command is securely in place regardless and that command is to love our neighbors as ourselves. When THAT command is done BY HIM in us, ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS is fulfilled regardless of the RCC structures that say otherwise. I will not be trading in His Measures for the ones you are FORCED to use to bring condemnation to your fellow man, and imho yourself in the process. But of course the RCC has been busy laying your sins upon your back and selling you temporary absolutions for quite a long time, which in part is how we got to where we are today isn't it? [/font][/color][/size]

I can call you brother because my church sees you as as my brother, because of your baptism (which is an assumption on my part that you have been), you are a member of the one body of Christ. You are a brother who no longer comes to the family table, but that does not change the fact that you are my brother.

If you would like to shift the discussion to how one is saved, or how the temporal consequences of sin are removed, that would be a completely different topic. I&#8217;d rather finish the one we&#8217;re on first, which is making sure there is a complete understanding by you and others that the Catholic church does not teach that only Catholics may be saved. Once we&#8217;ve resolved that, we can move on if you wish.

Which, btw, have we resolved that the Catholic church does not teach that if you're not a formal member, you cannot be saved? I haven't seen you make that statement in a while, and while we agree you are excommunicated, you have not provided any evidence of church teaching that says that implies a person cannot be saved.

As stated, I would venture the majority of RCC adherents cannot quite extend purgatory as a possibility for ALL mankind. And in that they too receive into themselves a REFLECTION of their OWN hearts....

Why would we extend purgatory as possibility for ALL mankind? That would mean we believe that all mankind will be saved and no one will end up in hell. To believe that there is indeed a hell you see as being a reflection of my heart?

Indeed. Would that they measured themselves the same way.

Any individual who opts to judge their fellow man should first consider the plank in their own eye. No problem there.

Yeah, unfortunately mankinds choice is often the only culprit in these matters. Another shill upon which to lay the blame in order to bring condemnation to same and to exonerate 'self' in the process. Quite a faulty measure.

Romans 2:1 strictly forbids the practice of condemnation of sinners by other sinners but they are led to do so anyway. And in fact by the Words saying NOT to do it, that same admonishment actually PROVOKES this to happen so that we would ALL see what is really a condition of our own hearts and that we would then flee from those measures.

enjoy!

squint

Again, condemnation in what sense? Certainly not claiming an individual cannot be saved, as you&#8217;ve been professing.

I&#8217;m assuming from your comments that you would never see a case where an individual should discontinue fellowship with another, and to imply that maybe they should do so is unscriptural for it is &#8216;condemning&#8217; the other and judging them?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Which, btw, have we resolved that the Catholic church does not teach that if you're not a formal member, you cannot be saved? I haven't seen you make that statement in a while, and while we agree you are excommunicated, you have not provided any evidence of church teaching that says that implies a person cannot be saved.

Just excommunicated from your Denomination

 

[narnia59]

Just excommunicated from your Denomination

That would be your view of that, which if we're talking about your view, certainly fine. That doesn't make it the way the Catholic church views it however.

 

[Rhamiel]

LLOJ

Just excommunicated from your Denomination

no it means you lack visible membership with the formal Church on earth

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ
no it means you lack visible membership with the formal Church on earth

And that would be the RCC? Just another Denomination to me.

Deut 28:13 And YHWH gives thee to head and not to tail, and thou become surely to above and not thou shall become to below. That thou shall listen to instructions of YHWH thy 'Elohiym which I instructing thee the day to observe and to do.

John 8:23 And He said to them, "Ye out of the below are, I out of the above am. Ye out of this, the world, are. I not am out of the world, this.
24 I said then to ye, that ye shall be dying in the sins of ye, for if-ever no ye should be believing that I am, ye shall be dying in the sins of ye.'

 

[narnia59]

And that would be the RCC? Just another Denomination to me.

Deut 28:13 And YHWH gives thee to head and not to tail, and thou become surely to above and not thou shall become to below. That thou shall listen to instructions of YHWH thy 'Elohiym which I instructing thee the day to observe and to do.

John 8:23 And He said to them, "Ye out of the below are, I out of the above am. Ye out of this, the world, are. I not am out of the world, this.
24 I said then to ye, that ye shall be dying in the sins of ye, for if-ever no ye should be believing that I am, ye shall be dying in the sins of ye.'

A view you're certainly entitled to have, which would not be shared by the Catholic church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A view you're certainly entitled to have, which would not be shared by the Catholic church.

I understand as I also consider the Orthodox a Denomination .

I remember this thread awhile back that someone posted on the Upside of denominationalism. Will have to look at it again. Preace

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5697102&page=6
The upside of Denominationalism

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I think I found the answer!!

Here are some ECFs about the reason Rome was chosen.

The Poem Against the Marcionites


"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276&#8211;284 [A.D. 267]).


Optatus


"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head&#8212;that is why he is also called Cephas [&#8216;Rock&#8217;]&#8212;of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: &#8216;You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven&#8217; [Matt. 16:18&#8211;19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.

"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Forgive me...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Monica,

I am grateful to yourself, Narnia and Rhamiel for your continuing engagement.

It seems to me that the Orthodox are not disputing the primacy of the See of St. Peter, just the interpretation of what that means; but as Rhamiel has pointed out with regard to the Eastern Rite Catholics, it may be that non-Catholics have a defective understanding of the Pope's relationship with non-Latin Rite Churches in communion with Rome.

I am still not seeing any of us offering a convincing account od what that name change was about. I take your point, and that of Narnia and Rhamiel about not reading Peter=Rock as contradicting the many assertions that Christ is the Rock upon which His Church rests.

On the Antioch front, however, I'm not seeing a satisfactory explanation from the Catholic side of this discussion. If there was an office and it was invested in Peter, one might have expected the first Church of which he was bishop to have been aware of it. One might also expect to see something of it in St. Peter's own epistles.

It still seems to me that we are in the arena of two developing traditions, with the West, for the historical reasons discussed above, coming to an understanding which differs from that of the East - before, of course, opinion in the West divided on the issue.

So I think the Orthodox can accept that Peter is the rock, if, by that, is meant something less than that his successor has authority over bishops in Alexandria, Moscow and Constantinople. As OrthodoxyUSA has said, historically such a power was not claimed (of course, in the case of Moscow it could not have been) in the early Church. That said, it is admitted that Rome held a special place in that Church.

peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

Fair enough Anglian. This is my question though.

How does the Orthodox model of autocephalous churches really differ from the model of many Protestant churches with autonomous local churches?

The Southern Baptists for example. They share a common statement of faith and do joint mission work. But each local church is autonomous in terms of authority.

The SB have several thousand of these local churches. The Orthodox have ?? (what, 12 or so that are autocephalous)? A great difference in number for sure, but conceptually have the same idea of what one church means?

And I'm not really sure that's a question for you, because in the OO that's not the organization structure at all, correct? Or am I wrong about that?

 

[narnia59]

So I think the Orthodox can accept that Peter is the rock, if, by that, is meant something less than that his successor has authority over bishops in Alexandria, Moscow and Constantinople. As OrthodoxyUSA has said, historically such a power was not claimed (of course, in the case of Moscow it could not have been) in the early Church. That said, it is admitted that Rome held a special place in that Church.

peace,

Anglian

But why just the bishops in Alexandria, Moscow and Constantinople?

If an apostle was the equivalent of a bishop, and all are equal, where is the NT model for patriarchs? How can some bishops come under the jurisdiction of other bishops (those of Moscow, Alexandria and Constantinople)? Where is the primacy in the NT for a patriarch over other bishops?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Narnia,

You ask:

Fair enough Anglian. This is my question though.

How does the Orthodox model of autocephalous churches really differ from the model of many Protestant churches with autonomous local churches?

The Southern Baptists for example. They share a common statement of faith and do joint mission work. But each local church is autonomous in terms of authority.

Since the OO model is, as you suggest, somewhat different from the EO practice, and since I know absolutely nothing about the Southern Baptists, I'd have to admit that I can't answer this question.

On this one:

But why just the bishops in Alexandria, Moscow and Constantinople?

If an apostle was the equivalent of a bishop, and all are equal, where is the NT model for patriarchs? How can some bishops come under the jurisdiction of other bishops (those of Moscow, Alexandria and Constantinople)? Where is the primacy in the NT for a patriarch over other bishops?

the answer must lie in the practice and Councils of the Church, which recognised Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople as having special jurisdiction over their patriarchates. Thus, in the one I know best, canon 6 of Nicaea establishes the authority of Alexandria over the whole of Egypt and Libya.

peace,

Anglian