The missing piece of the YOU ARE PETER puzzle

[concretecamper]

We haven't forgotten God works in various and wonderful non-catholic ways.

Of course God works outside His Church

Luke 9:47-50

47. And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48. And said to them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receives me: and whosoever shall receive me receives him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us.
50. And Jesus said to him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

AMBROSE; Now why does He in this place say that they are not to be hindered, who by the imposition of hands can subdue the unclean spirits, when according to Matthew, He says to these, I never knew you? But we ought to perceive that there is no difference of opinion, but that the decision is this, that not only the official works but works of virtue are required in a priest, and that the name of Christ is so great, that even to the unholy it serves to give defense, but not grace.

God working outside His Church and being part of His Church are two totally different things.

 

[Rick Otto]

Of course God works outside His Church

Luke 9:47-50

47. And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48. And said to them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receives me: and whosoever shall receive me receives him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
49. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name; and we forbade him, because he follows not with us.
50. And Jesus said to him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

AMBROSE; Now why does He in this place say that they are not to be hindered, who by the imposition of hands can subdue the unclean spirits, when according to Matthew, He says to these, I never knew you? But we ought to perceive that there is no difference of opinion, but that the decision is this, that not only the official works but works of virtue are required in a priest, and that the name of Christ is so great, that even to the unholy it serves to give defense, but not grace.

God working outside His Church and being part of His Church are two totally different things.

Thank you! That is my favorite verse for describing the limits of ecclesiastical authority between men, and illustrating the broadest definition of the term "church".
I respectfully disagree with St.Ambrose regarding the equating of the man in Luke 9:49 with the lawless miracle workers in Matthew. I believe he has made a serious error in that regard.

In fact it is counterintuitive in that Luke is a circumstance where an ecclesiastical authority is illegitimately wanting to be asserted whereas in Matthew, a lack of legitimate authoritative leadership has allowed the operation lawless miracles.

 

[concretecamper]

I respectfully disagree with St.Ambrose regarding the equating of the man in Luke 9:49 with the lawless miracle workers in Matthew. I believe he has made a serious error in that regard..

Ah....the fruits of Sola Scripture......I couldn't have described it better myself....thanks!

 

[Rick Otto]

Ah....the fruits of Sola Scripture......I couldn't have described it better myself....thanks!

You are entirely welcome! Yes, freedom of religion and personal responsibility improve critical thinking skills over the centuries, even though they don't entirely overcome cultural indoctrination and irrational loyalties.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It wasn't the "Catholic Church." All the churches of that era were non-denominational and included more of what are now the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox than the Roman churches and bishops. What's more, it is undeniably true that all the books that were finally collected together and approved were already recognized by the churches throughout the Empire as being inspired and were in use in those churches.

Yes. The Catholic Church is non-denominational. I (think) you're starting to understand. Not. The Church decided the OT canon. Then the Jews came along and decided their version of the canon, then much later, you Protesters.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think you believe you know more than you actually do.
I not only stayed awake during catechism class, I observed the self contradictions and persistently questioned transubstantiation, for instance. So the holier than thou chorus falls flat on these ears, my friend.
We haven't forgotten God works in various and wonderful non-catholic ways.

Yyou know everyone in heaven is Catholic, don't you? I understand that you dissent from what was taught to you. That just makes you a dissenter. I'm sorry your ears are plugged up. But it's you plugging them.

 

[Albion]

Yes. The Catholic Church is non-denominational.

Don't say "yes" and then change what I had said and you are supposedly agreeing with.

The church of the first few centuries included all the Eastern churches as well as the Latin and Celtic ones and there was no Papacy or denominationalism. This is the era that historians refer to as the age of the "Undivided Church" before the split with the Oriental Orthodox and the Great Schism of 1054.

Therefore, it's silly to claim that one segment only of this Christian church wrote the Bible, as though all the other dioceses and patriarchates didn't exist, and especially considering that their representatives were more important in the councils that went about defining the beliefs of the Church than were the Latin ones.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Don't say "yes" and then change what I had said and you are supposedly agreeing with.

The church of the first few centuries included all the Eastern churches as well as the Latin and Celtic ones and there was no Papacy or denominationalism. This is the era that historians refer to as the age of the "Undivided Church" before the split with the Oriental Orthodox and the Great Schism of 1054.

Therefore, it's silly to claim that one segment only of this Christian church wrote the Bible, as though all the other dioceses and patriarchates didn't exist, and especially considering that their representatives were more important in the councils that went about defining the beliefs of the Church than were the Latin ones.

Well, I do agree with your statement, as stated.

 

[BobRyan]

I would like to get back to the subject of the OP and Title of the thread.

They all drank from the spiritual Rock (PETRA) and that ROCK (Petra) was CHRIST -- 1Cor 10:1-4.

No foundation can anyone lay other than has been laid and that foundation is CHRIST - 1Cor 3.

Matt 16 "23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”"

 

[Rick Otto]

Pope Satan?

 

[barryatlake]

BobRyan & Rick,wrong, no Pope was ever Satan .Maybe if you say you believe in only the Bible then you will be able to understand this verse from your Bible: " Luke 22:31-32:
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

 

[Rick Otto]

Right. It was rhetoric, and you have withstood it honorably.
But I still can't feel comfortable about the Borgias.
The Borgias ? First Crime Family ? Crime Library

 

[barryatlake]

Rick, in your reference article on the "Borgias, First Crime Family''. I ask you, as written in that anti-Catholic article, how could the prisoners look up at the Vatican, when the Vatican never existed until the 20TH Century?

 

[Rick Otto]

Rick, in your reference article on the "Borgias, First Crime Family''. I ask you, as written in that anti-Catholic article, how could the prisoners look up at the Vatican, when the Vatican never existed until the 20TH Century?

Selective redefinition underpins your perspective. Lets level
Vatican
1.
a. the palace of the popes in Rome and their principal residence there since 1377, which includes administrative offices, a library, museum, etc., and is attached to the basilica of St Peter's
b. (as modifier): the Vatican Council
2.
a. the authority of the Pope and the papal curia
b. (as modifier): a Vatican edict

 

[barryatlake]

Rick, you are correct, the Vatican [ not to be confused with Vatican City, date established -1929 ] was always in existence from the 1st Century A.D.

About the Borgia Family, Pope Alexander was a corrupt Borgia,no harm in revealing the fallen character of all people including clerics. As Jesus tells us, His Church would contain "good and bad" as per Bible. Regardless of the status / character of its members of His Church being "good or bad'', it has no bearing what so ever with the Church's Doctrine.
__________________

 

[BobRyan]

Rick, you are correct, the Vatican [ not to be confused with Vatican City, date established -1929 ] was always in existence from the 1st Century A.D.

But not in real history

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan & Rick,wrong, no Pope was ever Satan .Maybe if you say you believe in only the Bible then you will be able to understand this verse from your Bible: " Luke 22:31-32:
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

So then "we should not read Matt 16"?? Will it be removed from scripture soon?

Neither Matt 16 nor Luke 22 say "Pope Peter you are Satan" Matt 16 says Christ said this "to Peter".

Matt 16
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.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
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.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

[barryatlake]

BobRyan, that's funny, I can see from reading the Bible from Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times.But Bob, I can't find the name of Ellen White mentioned at all, not once, from the Holy Bible. Only from a real history book can I find where she was the 1844 inventor of your [ SDA ] religion. 1844! No Bob, Jesus only gave Peter His authority and the keys for becoming the shepherd of His Church on Earth in 33 A.D. { {Matt.16:15- 19 }

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, that's funny, I can see from reading the Bible from Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times.But Bob, I can't find the name of Ellen White mentioned at all,

I find in 1Cor 14 -

Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy....5 greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues.. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe...24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

Paul does not "name the prophets" in Corinth -- he simply admits they are there - as we all can see.

To despise God's prophets is never stated in the Bible as "a virtue" - I think we can all see that point.

Still I am not sure how this relates to Matt 16 - since the RCC does not claim that the popes are all prophets.

Neither Matt 16 nor Luke 22 say "Pope Peter you are Satan" Matt 16 says Christ said this "to Peter".

Matt 16
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.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
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.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

==========================

I believe it is fair to say that everyone on this thread - including me has high regard for Peter as one of the 12 apostles -- in fact he is one of the 3 apostles held in high regard even among the Apostles. Paul said that Peter James and John were directing their ministry primarily to Jews - as he was directing his primarily to gentiles. Peter's name is written on one of the 12 foundations stones that serve as foundations "For the wall" of the city of the new Jerusalem as we are told in Rev 21.

This subject is not about non-Catholics despising Peter as a way to correct the error of worship to Peter and the Papal claims made about themselves and Peter. I fully expect that Peter would be just as opposed to the Papal succession doctrines and all that comes with it - as many other Christians are.

This is not about "non-Catholics against Peter". The reason for pointing out the issue in Matt 16 is that it shows that Christ still had a lot of work to do in getting Peter to stand for the right in all cases.

Christ is about to take Peter, James and John up to the mountain where Peter and his friends will be bowed low before Christ, Moses and Elijah. Still highly honored above the other nine disciples to even be there at all.

Still in Matt 16 Peter was on his way to denying Christ 3 times at the trial. So Peter has some rough edges to be worked out by the Holy Spirit yet he does eventually get passed that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[barryatlake]

BobRyan, you wrote: "I fully expect that Peter would be just as opposed to the Papal succession doctrines and all that comes with it - as many other Christians are."

I see not one word from Peter in the Bible where he squabbled with Jesus about his name change or his acceptance of the Keys as stated in Matt.16:15:-19.

In this verse of Matt.28:20 " Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you " Do you think that Jesus only came for the 1st century Christians alone and not for generations of future members of His Church? There is only ONE CHURCH that has these qualities and that church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, no matter how much you anti-Catholics rant and rave against these Words from Jesus you can never change the Truth from our Lord as found here in [ Luke 10: 16 ] Now instead of your bombastic excuse's for denial of that Bible verse try refuting it from your Bible.
Must I remind you of further bible verses that show Jesus intended for a continuation of successors as explained in the Book of Acts and Titus.

You wrote: "as many other Christians are."

The only other Christians that squawked about Jesus and His Teachings were the future protestors aka Protestants