Popes are Redundant?

[ps139]

He was speaking to a group here:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?...​

I was referring to another verse, from Matt 16.

In Matt 16 Jesus gives to Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing.

Then in 18 he gives the binding and loosing to the other apostles.

So, Peter again was first, and he also was the only one given the keys.

 

[MesaMike]

Hi cousin Disasm

I'm no expert here, but I've read that "binding and loosing" was rabbinical jargon of the time that had to do with permitting or disallowing certain practices or notions, and was administrative in nature. So that fits in with your usage of it.

Unlike what a lot of people in the church I attend think. They insist that it means we have the power to "bind" the demons, and "loose" those that are in bondage, usually by just "decreeing" it so in the Name of Jesus. Sloppy theology, there.

 

[ps139]

The first thing that I am going to ask you is to refrain from referring to my post as "my" interpretation. You belong to a church and believe in their teachings and I belong to a church and believe in their teachings. So keep the debate to substance instead of what "I" believe.

Sorry, but you began with this whole "your interpretation" thing, as a way of not answering my statements... just blowing them off as "RCC," as if that is some kind of substantive answer.

The examples that you provided are paraphrases of what the RC teaches.

The examples I provided are descriptions of what happens in Scripture. Again, tell me how you do not think they mean Peter was a leader, or why they are irrelevant. If your only response is "RC" then why bother even discussing?

Strawman.

No, good analogy.



I did, however, it is contrary to what the RC teaches.

LOL! That makes absolutely no sense. The two epistles of Peter is merely one piece of evidence among many.

Ok, then give me the evidence. An argument from ignorance isn't going to hold much weight.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1
He was speaking to a group here:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?...​

reve 20:4 And I perceived Thrones and They are seated on them and judgement was given to Them
11 And I perceived a Throne, great, white, and the One sitting on it/him of whom the Face fled the land and the heaven and place not was found to them.

 

[ps139]

In case any Protestants are worried that believing Peter is "The Rock" or that he was a leader will damn them to Catholicism...
dont worry you can still be a good Protestant

“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

“The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

--

“The name Peter means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for 'rock' (petra) differs from the name Petros, the 'rock' referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”" (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

--

“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

“Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname 'Peter' (Petros=rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42 [wherein he is called Cephas]), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus' declaration, 'You are Peter,' parallels Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' as if to say, 'Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.' The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” (Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)

“Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff).” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)

“'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)....” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

“The play on words -- 'Peter', this 'rock' -- requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, 'stone') to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical -- Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, 'rock'. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the 'rock' from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world...” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

“The 'rock' is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)

“"...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

“16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name 'Peter' means 'stone' or 'rock' (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros).... There are no documented instances of anyone's ever being named 'rock' in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word 'stone' or 'rock,' not 'Peter,' which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: 'You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church....On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name 'rock' to signify this.” (The New Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock" I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter' and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn' (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter's faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view....” (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)

 

[Rhamiel]

does it make any sense that Jesus would make the position of apostle, that the Holy Spirit would make sure information about the position of the Apostles was in the NT, just to have this position fade away with the death of the first 12? No the modern position of Bishop is the same as what we called the ancient position of Apostle

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sunlover1
He was speaking to a group here:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ​

reve 20:4 And I perceived Thrones and They are seated on them and judgement was given to Them
11 And I perceived a Throne, great, white, and the One sitting on it/him of whom the Face fled the land and the heaven and place not was found to them.

In case any Protestants are worried that believing Peter is "The Rock" or that he was a leader will damn them to Catholicism

The only ones that have to worry about Peter and the Apostles judgements are the Jews.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

JOHN 5:45 "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you -- Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In case any Protestants are worried that believing Peter is "The Rock" or that he was a leader will damn them to Catholicism...
dont worry you can still be a good Protestant



--





--

Exactly. And those people are great scholars, too (I'm a particular fan of D.A. Carson).

Peter's special place among the apostles is evidenced just by the sheer among of knowledge we have about him contra the other apostles. In my reasoning, it is simply unsubstantiated that his authority and commission to build the curch passed on to his succesors in Rome.

 

[Hentenza]

Really? Not trying to start an argument, but what about these verses (I'm just doing this from memory but you'll recognize these passages)

OK, no probelm

- Peter, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Saying something 3 times back then was like a legal contract. That Jesus said this was hugely important. It makes Peter the shepherd of Christ's sheep. Notice, Jesus doesn't say this to any other apostles.

John 21:15-19- Jesus reinstates Peter after Peter's lapse of faith when he denied Christ 3 times. I find it interesting that Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves him. Also note that Jesus addresses Peter as Simon.
No one can feed Jesus sheep and lambs if they don't love Jesus. Jesus tells Peter to follow Him and feed his sheep. So, what how do you interpret feeding Jesus sheep? How does these verses attest to Peter's supremacy over the other disciples?

- Notice that in just about every time that more than a few apostles are mentioned, it is "Peter and the apostles did this" or "Peter and the apostles did that." Gotta be a reason for that.

Please cite some specifics. Thanks.

- Christ specifically prayed that Peter's faith would "fail not". Also, Peter is the only apostle commanded by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren."

Luke 22:28-32
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
33But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."
34Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

The context of these verses support the view that Jesus prayed for Peter because Peter was about to deny Jesus not because Peter had supremacy. As a matter of fact in verse 28 and 29 Jesus is specific that He conferring the earthly kingdom to those who stood by Him in His trials. Peter did not stand by Jesus but denied Him 3 times instead.

When Mary Magdalene sees the angel at the open tomb, he says to her "go tell Peter and the apostles what you have seen' - why wouldn't he just say 'the apostles.' ? Again there must be some reason for that.

John 20:1-2
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

If in fact the apostle that Jesus loved is John, then Mary Magdalene would have known specifically where he was. According to the above verses it appears that Peter was with this apostle. Keep in mind that the apostles scattered after Jesus was arrested so it is reasonable to think that Mary Magdalene might not have known where some had gone. However, it is entirely possible for Mary to have known where John was since Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John.

Peter is FIRST in:
- performing a miracle after Christ (with the shadow)
- raising someone from the dead after Christ
- taking the lead in replacing Judas
- to receive the Gentiles (after his dream)
- have a miracle worked for him while he is out preaching (released from prison by the angel)
- first to combat heresy (simon the magician)

I fail to see how any of these would prove Peter's supremacy. Please expand your thoughts here using actual scripture so that we can examine the context.

Peter is the only one of the 12 to have a name changed by God. As students of the Bible we know this is of tremendous import. Actually, I think his name was changed as soon as he met Jesus!

Yes, Jesus did indeed change Simon's name to Peter, however, this fact is not an automatic assumption that Peter was to specifically be supreme over the other disciples.
BTW- Even though Paul was not one of the original 12, Jesus changed his name also.

Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is given the ability to bind and loose sins. Peter is called the 'rock' on which the Church is built.

LOL! We can discussed these until we are blue in the face and not agree. Briefly, the keys to the kingdom of Heaven refer to spreading the gospel to those who will hear. The terms binding and loosing ties to Jesus command to the apostles to shake the dust of their sandals in those towns that rejected the gospel. The rock in which the church was to be build is the faith in Christ, the chief cornerstone, not in Peter.

Peter is clearly the leader. There are probably tons more examples from Scripture but that's all I can remember.

I disagree.

BTW- Please excuse my abruptness to your post last night. I was really tired and should not have entered into a serious discussion. Please forgive me.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

BTW- Please excuse my abruptness to your post last night. I was really tired and should not have entered into a serious discussion. Please forgive me.

I know you're not asking me, but I thought I'd comment on this just to point out your humility and willingness to engage in self-criticism. It's something seriously lacking in many of us.

 

[sunlover1]

I was referring to another verse, from Matt 16.

In Matt 16 Jesus gives to Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing.

Then in 18 he gives the binding and loosing to the other apostles.

So, Peter again was first, and he also was the only one given the keys.

Hi Ps 139,

I think it could very well have been personal,
as far as the keys go only.


Just what does that mean btw, I give to you
the keys of the kingdom of Heaven?
What was Jesus saying to Peter?

 

[Hentenza]

I know you're not asking me, but I thought I'd comment on this just to point out your humility and willingness to engage in self-criticism. It's something seriously lacking in many of us.

Thanks, GCC.

I struggle with what comes out of my "mouth" sometimes. It is something that is constantly in my prayer for God to help me with.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is this going to turn into another "peter" thread?.

 

[Hentenza]

In case any Protestants are worried that believing Peter is "The Rock" or that he was a leader will damn them to Catholicism...
dont worry you can still be a good Protestant



--





--

No worries here. There are also plenty of protestant scholars that don't agree with the ones you posted.

 

[Hentenza]

Is this going to turn into another "peter" thread?.

Hope not LLJ. Been there done that.

 

[sunlover1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps139
In case any Protestants are worried that believing Peter is "The Rock" or that he was a leader will damn them to Catholicism...
dont worry you can still be a good Protestant

The last thing I want to be called is protestant or catholic.


But I do agree that Jesus called Peter "rock".
I DONT believe one can build a doctrine out of
one verse, in fact it's dangerous imo.

He was speaking to a group here too btw,
except for where he specifies Peter:

Matt 16:13
he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Notice JESUS gives the glory to God, rather than peter.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Petera, and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hmmm, He goes from you to this.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The keys, the binding, and the loosing.
Which is exclusively given to Peter and how can we
be sure?
AND...
Just what DOES that mean?
Scripture, historical evidence and common sense point to
Peter was given a 'ministry', a very honored position
no doubt, but NOT infallibility, and not "THE" rock.
Peter was called a rock by Jesus Christ, THE rock.


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
a Peter: this name signifies a rock



HE was speaking specifically to Peter then shifted his
attention to all, how do we know which point the shift was.
Maybe he was addressing them ALL about binding and
loosing when he told Peter that part, and what of it
if He wasnt?
Peter was the one who spoke up first, so Jesus
was in conversation with him.
Saying that Jesus told Peter first about binding and loosing
so then Peter must be (insert claims here) is stretching
the words to make them fit a preconcieved idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhamiel
does it make any sense that Jesus would make the position of apostle, that the Holy Spirit would make sure information about the position of the Apostles was in the NT, just to have this position fade away with the death of the first 12? No the modern position of Bishop is the same as what we called the ancient position of Apostle

Are you asking if we're supposed to continue to follow
apostles teachings?

sunlover

. In my reasoning, it is simply unsubstantiated that his authority and commission to build the curch passed on to his succesors in Rome.

Right, because the authority Jesus gave Peter was to
go ahead and get the ball rolling...period, right?

Or did I miss something?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ps139

Really? Not trying to start an argument, but what about these verses (I'm just doing this from memory but you'll recognize these passages)
Peter, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Saying something 3 times back then was like a legal contract. That Jesus said this was hugely important. It makes Peter the shepherd of Christ's sheep. Notice, Jesus doesn't say this to any other apostles.

http://foru.ms/t5990509-lamb-of-god-in-the-nt.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 21:15 When, therefore, they dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, `Simon, of Jonas, dost thou love/agapaV <25> Me more than these?' he saith to Him, `Yes, Lord; thou hast known that I dearly love/filw <5368> thee;' He saith to him, `Feed/boske <1006> My Lamb-kins/arnia <721> .'
16 He saith to him again, a second time, `Simon of Jonas, dost thou love/agapaV <25> Me?' he saith to him, `Yes, Lord; thou hast known that I dearly love/filw <5368> Thee;' He saith to him, `Be Shepherding/poimaine <4165> My Sheep/probata <4263> .'
17 He saith to him the third time, `Simon of Jonas, dost thou dearly love/fileiV <5368> Me?' Peter was grieved that he said to him the third time, `Dost thou dearly love/fileiV <5368> Me?' and he said to Him, `Lord, thou hast known all things; thou dost know that I dearly love/filw <5368> Thee.' Jesus saith to him, `Feed/boske <1006> My Sheep/probata <4263>;

 

[Trento]

Have you read any of the history of the church from before the 11th or 12th century and forward? Jewel encrusted crowns? Palaces? Ruling over kings? Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ......... Obviously not.

I
have read the history of the Church right from the first Century and I can say without a doubt that there were no Baptists then John Smyth started that in 1609, there were no Calvinists Old John started his ideas in 1536 in 1534 Henry the VIII started the Anglican Church because of a Goggle eyed harlot named Anne Bleyn whom he was obsessed with .Must i continue?
When Christendom was Christendom it rightly turned swords on the faith’s behalf, just as Peter had leapt for his scabbard to defend his Lord. It was the Church that gave us chivalry, turning barbarian high spirits to useful ends. It was one of the great historic tragedies of Reformation Protestantism that it broke this Church check and guide on the martial spirit by saying that the power of the state was scriptural and that the power of the Church was not.
That was a terrible regression. It sanctified the idea that might makes right, and the idea that the Church was of marginal importance to society, civilization, and politics. It undid the work of centuries. Where once the Roman emperor, commander of all Rome’s legions, could be forced to do penance by the Bishop of Milan, as the Emperor Theodosius was compelled to do by St. Ambrose, after the Reformation the Church’s check on state power was abolished.
If any institution was not surprised by the twentieth century being a century of genocide and two world wars, it was the Church. The Church predicted that this was the path that was being laid by the Reformation, Revolution, Liberalism, Secularism, and Statism, all of which inevitably followed one after the other, as the Church saw they would.

When the early Catholics took control of the Roman Empire, it was an empire in decline. It was not so obvious in Constantine's day when the first edict of religious toleration in Western History was issued, but by the time of Augustine, the decline was clear. As the empire in the West declined and broke up into smaller barbarian kingdoms, the Church survived to preserve literature, law, and philosophy. To the Christian barbarians, it served as the one unifying cultural factor in the West. Barbarian kings like Charlemagne served as lords of their own realms, but as such, they were only members of a larger realm, the realm of Christendom, not ruled by a king, but by Christ through his vicar the pope.

For centuries, governments co-existed with the Church. They were responsible for their own sphere of authority, and kept the peace as best they could. Yet, no true king could be crowned except by a bishop of the Church, and all Christian kings washed the feet of peasants on Holy Thursday.
The late medieval era you are referring to was the age of the state's struggle against the Church. This struggle is personified most dramatically in Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, and his king, Henry II of England.
Becket, unwilling to yield the Church's property and the Church's autonomy to the king, was murdered in his own cathedral by the king's knights. Bursting into Canterbury Cathedral, the knights demanded, "Where is the traitor?" Becket appeared declaring, "Here I am, no traitor to the King, but a priest of God." Struck down before the altar, Becket was soon afterward declared a Saint, a symbol of the righteousness of defying the arbitrary rule of kings.
The Catholic Church is now and has always been a counter balance to nationalism and to the nation-state. The second is that "progress" as conceived by the modern liberal and socialist mind is an illusion, and that the anti-utopian way of the Church is the only hope against the messianic dreams of the state and its drive to create its own Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

Liberalism did not invent human rights or limited government. The Church did. The rise of democracy, did, however, produce fascism and communism around half the globe.

The Church recognized that at the heart of all state worship was the concept of progress."The Church denied that the state could serve any purpose other than helping to secure peace and allowing people to exercise free will. Modern government, on the other hand, declares that government exists to take society from where it is to somewhere wonderful. For the modern ideologue, the state is to create paradise whether it is through abolition of private property, through coerced equality, or through the final solution as we see in the bloody 20th century which is the crowning achievement of anti-Catholicism, the modern state, and progress.​

 

[Hentenza]

I
have read the history of the Church right from the first Century and I can say without a doubt that there were no Baptists then John Smyth started that in 1609, there were no Calvinists Old John started his ideas in 1536 in 1534 Henry the VIII started the Anglican Church because of a Goggle eyed harlot named Anne Bleyn whom he was obsessed with .Must i continue?

It was bound to happen judging the behavior of the RC.

When Christendom was Christendom it rightly turned swords on the faith’s behalf, just as Peter had leapt for his scabbard to defend his Lord. It was the Church that gave us chivalry, turning barbarian high spirits to useful ends. It was one of the great historic tragedies of Reformation Protestantism that it broke this Church check and guide on the martial spirit by saying that the power of the state was scriptural and that the power of the Church was not.

And what did Jesus tell Peter.
Matthew 26:52
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

That was a terrible regression. It sanctified the idea that might makes right, and the idea that the Church was of marginal importance to society, civilization, and politics. It undid the work of centuries. Where once the Roman emperor, commander of all Rome’s legions, could be forced to do penance by the Bishop of Milan, as the Emperor Theodosius was compelled to do by St. Ambrose, after the Reformation the Church’s check on state power was abolished.

Yeah, it stopped the terrible RC kingdom. mmmmm.....Not a bad thing.

If any institution was not surprised by the twentieth century being a century of genocide and two world wars, it was the Church. The Church predicted that this was the path that was being laid by the Reformation, Revolution, Liberalism, Secularism, and Statism, all of which inevitably followed one after the other, as the Church saw they would.

Gee, I guess there were no wars or genocide before the 20th century.
You don't really want to go there since there are plenty of documented attrocities exacted on the population by the RC through the centuries. And mind me, all in the name of the Lord.

When the early Catholics took control of the Roman Empire, it was an empire in decline.

Took control? God was not involved? You definitely have not read the history of the time.

It was not so obvious in Constantine's day when the first edict of religious toleration in Western History was issued, but by the time of Augustine, the decline was clear.

Yep! The Roman empire was in decline. So?

As the empire in the West declined and broke up into smaller barbarian kingdoms, the Church survived to preserve literature, law, and philosophy.

The church did indeed preserved literature, law, and philosophy. They actually got real good at preserving the Law. Oops, I though Jesus came to fulfill the Law.

To the Christian barbarians, it served as the one unifying cultural factor in the West. Barbarian kings like Charlemagne served as lords of their own realms, but as such, they were only members of a larger realm, the realm of Christendom, not ruled by a king, but by Christ through his vicar the pope.

Or die? Christ vicar? or Ruler of earthly kingdoms.

For centuries, governments co-existed with the Church.

Or they would have been excommunicated.:o

They were responsible for their own sphere of authority, and kept the peace as best they could.

Pleeeeeze, read some history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet, no true king could be crowned except by a bishop of the Church, and all Christian kings washed the feet of peasants on Holy Thursday.

And this makes sense to you in light of your previous comment that they were responsible for their own sphere of authority. Contradictory?

The late medieval era you are referring to was the age of the state's struggle against the Church. This struggle is personified most dramatically in Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, and his king, Henry II of England.
Becket, unwilling to yield the Church's property and the Church's autonomy to the king, was murdered in his own cathedral by the king's knights. Bursting into Canterbury Cathedral, the knights demanded, "Where is the traitor?" Becket appeared declaring, "Here I am, no traitor to the King, but a priest of God." Struck down before the altar, Becket was soon afterward declared a Saint, a symbol of the righteousness of defying the arbitrary rule of kings.

A perfect example of the power hungry church of Rome. Even pope Alexander III was ready to excommunicate all of England because of his actions. I don't condone Becket's execution but the pope should have stuck to hi guns and dealt diplomatically with the king instead of making threats of excommunication and such.

The Catholic Church is now and has always been a counter balance to nationalism and to the nation-state.

The Catholic Church wanted ALL the power that it could get. So no it was not a counter balance but a bully.

The second is that "progress" as conceived by the modern liberal and socialist mind is an illusion, and that the anti-utopian way of the Church is the only hope against the messianic dreams of the state and its drive to create its own Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

I am not a liberal or a socialist.

Liberalism did not invent human rights or limited government. The Church did. The rise of democracy, did, however, produce fascism and communism around half the globe.

Oh pleeeeeze!! Baloney!!!

The Church recognized that at the heart of all state worship was the concept of progress."The Church denied that the state could serve any purpose other than helping to secure peace and allowing people to exercise free will.

As long as they bowed to the master.

Modern government, on the other hand, declares that government exists to take society from where it is to somewhere wonderful. For the modern ideologue, the state is to create paradise whether it is through abolition of private property, through coerced equality, or through the final solution as we see in the bloody 20th century which is the crowning achievement of anti-Catholicism, the modern state, and progress.

Man, where did you get this cut & paste? This is radical. Should the RC go back to physically fighting wars against governments?

Talking of cut & paste, can you provide your source for the above information? Thanks.
​

 

[Trento]

Hi Trento,
This is an inaccurate statement
that's been loosly thrown around,
confusing those who are babes.
I'm not my own papa, God is.
I cant see the issue you'd have
with me submitting to God.

There are no "ex-Catholics", only non-practicing ones.
You may be right here, but my challenge to you would be that if you are the discerner and definer of your Faith (i. e., "I will no longer practice my Faith according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, because I know the mission, instruction and demands of Faith better than it has been able to discern"), then.....

....you are your own "Pope".

You are serving the role of "papa" yourself that Catholics assent to in their practice of Faith in the authority of Church. You are assenting to your own definition of Faith.

Unless you became Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist (sorry if I left anyone out). Then, in my opinion, you are assenting to a congregationally-defined specific Faith against a broader more loosely defined "generic" practice of Faith.
The question really comes down to - definition of Faith practice. If you believe that you can pick up the Bible and get it - good for you. Then how come the guy across the pew from you picked up the same Scriptures, and got something different? If he got exactly the same thing in all areas - great, the mystery of the Holy Spirit is alive and well guiding the discernment of your assembly. If he initally got something a little different, but then saw his error when presented with your interpretation, then good. He has assented to the authority of your reading, and now you are his "papa" too.
That's how this stuff works - I believe it to be inescapable. If you are discerning, and not accepting someone elses help and authority in this area - you are the Pope for you.
Buried within the mechanism of Church as an institution within the non-Catholic and non-EO Faith practice, is schism of the Body of the Faithful. That the ministry is hired and fired by the congregants.

Who then is leading who? If there is dissent, the dissenters split and form their own congregation (or fire the preacher). The split then becomes the mechanism for a divergent Faith practice (if there is no difference in discernment, there would have been no split; no firing).

Jesus deposited the Christian Faith in the vessel that is the Apostles, who have passed that Faith on to us. The Church has been the guardian and teacher of that Faith, without compromise to "pleasing the crowd". Admittedly, there have been times when that guardianship was tarnished, but all in all, the institution has survived intact, in spite of the quirks and follies of the men running it. The authority, the "final say" if you will, of that institution is THE OFFICE of the Pope, which is filled by a man - just like you or I. He occupies the same office that was held by Peter, who was given this authority and this office as recored in Scriptures - by Jesus. This is taken on Faith.

I don't care if it's in agreement with fellow

christians, ( this is anti bibical )that gate is STRAIT, that
path is NARROW.
Last thing I want is to bow to the majority.

The one who actually obeys

and searches for God is the one who
will hear God.

Unless you actually hear and know it is God thalking and not the deciever i would be careful here.




No I don't choose to disregard anything.
I can't see it, cannot see anyone mentioning
that they needed to check in with Peter.
Paul even mentioned that before making
a large decision he conferred NOT with
flesh and blood (that self pope him )



Not really interested in historical routines.
Not to be offensive, but is making choices,
on the basis of other men's choices a wise
choice?

You are unconcerned in what the first Christians believed ?

You're presuming the hearers are listening.

Jesus made it clear that many will not HEAR.
It's not the fault of the Spirit.

Many do not care what the first Christians believed.

If majority agreement is the rule, why

not islam or Sikhism etc?

Islam is broken up into many denominations and sects as they are like Protestants . No authoritive Church just the Koran to interpret for themselves.


sunlover[/quote]