The Papacy

MaxP said:

When you have to make a statement that is directly contrary to Scripture, what does that tell you?

Click to expand...

Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself that question.

MaxP said:

When you have to make a statement that is directly contrary to Scripture, what does that tell you?

Click to expand...

But that's how your church understands it Max.
You realise that not all Christians believe Scripture says
that He's building on PETER the man, but rather on
the revelation they were discussing.

MaxP said:

What I'm trying to communicate is that Christ calling Peter rock, giving him the Keys to the Kingdom, and telling him to feed His sheep, can individually be written off, but together they are a whole nother thing.

Click to expand...

What I'm trying to communicate is that all of the Apostles were standing
there, we see later that they all have authority to bind and loose,
that God would build His church upon ANY guy is imo ludicrous ...
wait, any man except for JESUS...
etc.
Now you are very generously trying to help those of us who
disagree and since you're new (welcome btw!) I dont really
know much of your belief system or background.,, but I'd
hate to see you become disillusioned (Note the word )
by any of us here.
God bless you,
sunlover

I see cut & paste coming !

sunlover1 said:

I see cut & paste coming !

Click to expand...

LOL

Hopefully there will be citations, too!!

In John 21:15, Christ asks Peter if he loves (agape) Him. Peter responds with fileo.
In John 21:16, Christ asks Peter if he loves (agape) Him. Peter responds with fileo.
In John 21:17, Christ asks Peter if he loves ( fileo ) Him. Peter responds with fileo.

Not quite on topic, but cool

Thekla said:

In John 21:15, Christ asks Peter if he loves (agape) Him. Peter responds with fileo.
In John 21:16, Christ asks Peter if he loves (agape) Him. Peter responds with fileo.
In John 21:17, Christ asks Peter if he loves ( fileo ) Him. Peter responds with fileo.

Not quite on topic, but cool

Click to expand...

He must be in the 6th assembly of Revelation....

Reve 1:11 saying: "which thou are beholding write! into a scroll and send! to the seven Outcalleds/ekklhsiaiV <1577>. Into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"

PreachersWife2004 said:

My theory has always been that Jesus "pulled" Peter "aside" and told him these things because Peter was the weakest of the disciples. The rock is NOT Peter, the rock and foundation of the Church is Jesus. Peter was the one who denied Christ THREE times. I think Jesus was giving him a friendly reminder of what their job was to be in the coming times. There's no indication that Jesus was raising Peter over and above the other disciples. Unless, of course, you base your views on tradition rather than scripture.

Click to expand...

Jesus calls Peter "blessed" (makarios in Greek). This word always denotes the blessedness of the person whose relationship to God is correct and holy. Read Mt. 5:1-11; Rom. 4:7-8; Lk. 1:45. There is another word for "blessed" (eulogetos in Greek) which is used only of God and means "Praise". For example, Lk. 1:68


Okay. What "role" did Christ give "individually" to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of "Rock," "Key-bearer," and the authority to "bind and loosen." Also, in Luke 22:31-32, the Lord individually imparts to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (i.e. the other Apostles). Also, in John 21:15-19, the Lord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."
Here's a simple question: Are any of these things exclusive to the full measure of Peter's Apostolic office? Answer: No, they are not. And why? Because, Peter, like the other eleven, were made Apostles WAY BACK in Matthew 10:1-8, which was LONG before Peter was individually granted any of these other duties or responsibilities. And, speaking of Matthew 10 here, verses 7-8 tell us what the office of an Apostle is: It is a Christ-appointed office to proclaim the Gospel -- to deliver the fullness of new revelation to mankind. In this sense, and according to this Apostolic ministry, Peter was merely one of the Twelve and, as one of the Twelve, his Apostolic office was directed primarily toward to the Jews (Gal 2:7-9). Yet, as is clear from Scripture, the EPISCOPAL DIMENSION of Peter's Apostolic office carried other, additional responsibilities, which were given to him individually by Christ. And these responsibilities concerned maintaining the entire flock (the universal Church) in unity and orthodoxy. And this is exactly what we see Peter doing throughout the New Testament.
What's more, and I began to touch on this above, the authority to "bind and loosen" given to Peter in Matt 16:19, and to the Apostles collectively in Matt 18:18, is not an aspect of their primary Apostolic ministries, but rather an episcopal charism, involving the episcopal dimension of their offices, and one that is passed down to their episcopal successors. If anyone doubts this, he need only look at Matt 18:18 in context (i.e. Matt 18:15-18), and see that this authority to "bind and loosen" involves church government, viz. excommunication and the like -- an authority that is certainly still possessed by the Church today, even without the presence of true Apostles.

Apostles collectively in Matt 18:18, is not an aspect of their primary Apostolic ministries, but rather an episcopal charism, involving the episcopal dimension of their offices, and one that is passed down to their episcopal successors.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting greek word.

The Orthodox have bishops without a pope, so why should I need one?

Luke 19:44 And shall be leveling thee and thy offspring in thee, and not shall be leaving stone upon stone in thee, instead which not thou knew the time of thy visitation/inspection/episkophV <1984>".

1 Peter 2:12 The behaviour of ye in the nations having ideal, that in which they are according speaking of ye as evildoers out of the ideal works of being spectators, they should be glorifying the God in day of visitation/inspection/episkophV <1984>.

Thekla said:

In John 21:15, Christ asks Peter if he loves (agape) Him. Peter responds with fileo.
In John 21:16, Christ asks Peter if he loves (agape) Him. Peter responds with fileo.
In John 21:17, Christ asks Peter if he loves ( fileo ) Him. Peter responds with fileo.

Not quite on topic, but cool

Click to expand...

That is so lost in the English translation...


Good post

LittleLambofJesus said:

That is an interesting greek word.

The Orthodox have bishops without a pope, so why should I need one?

Luke 19:44 And shall be leveling thee and thy offspring in thee, and not shall be leaving stone upon stone in thee, instead which not thou knew the time of thy visitation/inspection/episkophV <1984>".

1 Peter 2:12 The behaviour of ye in the nations having ideal, that in which they are according speaking of ye as evildoers out of the ideal works of being spectators, they should be glorifying the God in day of visitation/inspection/episkophV <1984>.

Click to expand...

I thought they called their bishops pope???

When I manage a bunch of people, and I have one person on that team who doesn't always quite get the principle, I pull him or her aside and re-explain things. I may even tell them that they do great work and a great addition to the team. It does NOT mean that I have just handed the reins over to this person to run the project.

And again, most non-Catholics will agree that the scriptures do not clearly state that Jesus was making Peter the rock and foundation of the Church. Most will probably tell you that Jesus was clearly stating that Peter's calling him Christ is what Jesus is referring to, that he Himself will be the rock and foundation. For all we know, because scripture does not speak otherwise, Jesus renamed Peter as a reminder that Jesus is indeed Christ, lest Peter "forget" it again.

JacktheCatholic said:

That is so lost in the English translation...


Good post

Click to expand...

So what is the difference between them and how would you distinquish them in english?

John 21:15 When then they dine, is saying to-the Simon Peter, the Jesus: "Simon! of Jonas, thou are loving/agapaV <25> Me more of these?"
He is saying to Him, "Yea Lord! Thou are aware that I am being-fond/filw <5368> of Thee". He is saying to him, "be thou grazing! the lambkins/ arnia <721> of Me"

PreachersWife2004 said:

My theory has always been that Jesus "pulled" Peter "aside" and told him these things because Peter was the weakest of the disciples. The rock is NOT Peter, the rock and foundation of the Church is Jesus. Peter was the one who denied Christ THREE times. I think Jesus was giving him a friendly reminder of what their job was to be in the coming times. There's no indication that Jesus was raising Peter over and above the other disciples. Unless, of course, you base your views on tradition rather than scripture.

Click to expand...

When Jesus asked all the Aposlte who people say Jesus is it was Peter alone who was given the answer by God. It was not John the Beloved or any other Apostle. And in JOHN 17 we read that the Father is involved in bringing people to Jesus. So in fact Peter makes a unique and first statement of Jesus being God. This is seen as God choosing Peter to be the one to bear the Keys of Heaven and Hell which will allow Peter to be the Vicar of Christ and to hold a dynastic office.

JacktheCatholic said:

When Jesus asked all the Aposlte who people say Jesus is it was Peter alone who was given the answer by God. It was not John the Beloved or any other Apostle. And in JOHN 17 we read that the Father is involved in bringing people to Jesus. So in fact Peter makes a unique and first statement of Jesus being God. This is seen as God choosing Peter to be the one to bear the Keys of Heaven and Hell which will allow Peter to be the Vicar of Christ and to hold a dynastic office.

Click to expand...

Wasn't He the Vicar of Christ just to the Jews/Circumcision?

Gal 2:7 But to the contrary having seen that I have been entrusted the Well-Message of the uncircumcision according as Peter the circumcision.

LittleLambofJesus said:

So what is the difference between them and how would you distinquish them in english?

John 21:15 When then they dine, is saying to-the Simon Peter, the Jesus: "Simon! of Jonas, thou are loving/agapaV <25> Me more of these?"
He is saying to Him, "Yea Lord! Thou are aware that I am being-fond/filw <5368> of Thee". He is saying to him, "be thou grazing! the lambkins/ arnia <721> of Me"

Click to expand...

Two different forms of Love. One os to love. The first is the type of love that one would die for. The second is not. Peter denied Christ because he did not have such a love as he thought. In doing this with Jesus Peter admits his love as it is and not as he wanted. It is a confession and one that is forgiven. It is much like confession with a priest today.

Jesus having forgiven Peter his sin now gives the job of Shephard to Peter. It is an office of authority as the Keys also imply an office of authority. So Jesus has told Peter he is forgiven and still in charge as Jesus' Prime Minister, his Shephard and the Rock that will start the Church of Jesus which Jesus has laid His ownership as the cornerstone.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Wasn't He the Vicar of Christ just to the Jews/Circumcision?

Gal 2:7 But to the contrary having seen that I have been entrusted the Well-Message of the uncircumcision according as Peter the circumcision.

Click to expand...

Only if Jesus came to save only the Jews. But we know that gentiles were included too.

JacktheCatholic said:

Only if Jesus came to save only the Jews. But we know that gentiles were included too.

Click to expand...

Yes, He came to the Jews to save them and it is only thru their Messiah and His sacrifice we also are able to be saved. So do not boast

Romans 11:19 "Thou shall be declaring then 'are broken-off boughs that I may be in-pierced/grafted'
20 Ideally to the un-belief/faithless they are broken-off, thou yet to the Faith/Belief have stood. No being high minded, but be fearing.
21 For if the God of the according to nature, boughes, not He spares, neither of thee He shall be sparing".

PreachersWife2004 said:

When I manage a bunch of people, and I have one person on that team who doesn't always quite get the principle, I pull him or her aside and re-explain things. I may even tell them that they do great work and a great addition to the team. It does NOT mean that I have just handed the reins over to this person to run the project.

And again, most non-Catholics will agree that the scriptures do not clearly state that Jesus was making Peter the rock and foundation of the Church. Most will probably tell you that Jesus was clearly stating that Peter's calling him Christ is what Jesus is referring to, that he Himself will be the rock and foundation. For all we know, because scripture does not speak otherwise, Jesus renamed Peter as a reminder that Jesus is indeed Christ, lest Peter "forget" it again.

Click to expand...

We are in a world todayb with many different theologies on scripture that find acceptance in their groups. But many of these theologies are relatively new and never heard of before the 16th century.

When one studies all of christianity which includes history before the 16th century we find that some thing repeat themselves. Such as the herecy from the 4th century of Arius who claimed Jesus was not fully God. A pretty good modern example is the Jeovah Witnesses who say that Jesus is actually Saint Michael the Archangel. The Jehovaw Witnesses use scripture to make and prove this claim based on their understanding of scripture with exclusion of close to 1800 year of understood christian theology becaue their teachings started in the 18th or 19th century.

So which theology any of us choose is not dependent on what the Apostles most likely taught but rather on what one chooses to believe. If it were the first then one would place an importance on the writings of the men that were taught by the Apostles and given a place of authority as Bishop or father of a church. The Catholic Church uses all 2000 years of Christianity to understand what should or should not be taught as true and from God.

MaxP said:

I realize that; and I obviously would not be discussing this if I did believe that.

Click to expand...

Alright, I wasnt sure where you were coming from.

Christ uses the Papacy as the foundation of His earthly Church. It goes with out saying Christ the the source of the authority of the Church at all levels - he is the architect and designer of the Church, and the source of Its authority, as God.

Click to expand...

Yeah- I realise that's what you believe.
Try as I might, I havent received that revelation.
But so long as I got the one Peter did, I think
I may be all set.

Of course, as I said, the authority of the Church comes from Christ, but the foundation of the Church everywhere is men, whom God acts through. In order to help us discern between those actually led by God and those not, Christ instituted an authority, the Church, with the Papacy at its head.

Click to expand...

Uhhm, again. We be speaking two different languages here bro.

Traditional Roman Catholic, and thank you for the welcome.

Click to expand...

Very welcome. I was RC for the first 18ish years of my life, mom was
a born and bred RC and dad converted to, step mom is RC and my
siblings as well as most of my aunts uncles and cousins.

Trust me, if I was to be so easily led astray, I do not have a firm grasp on what the RC teaches, but I believe I do. So bring it on.

Click to expand...

OH lol, that's not what I meant.
And believe me , I'm NO fun when it comes to this.
But I'll watch and comment here and there k?