Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did I say something to suggest the parallel was not “exact”?
Eliakim filled a position (singular), of which plurality would contradict the very nature of the position.
Gibberish.
Popes and bishops debate vigorously all the time.
Then they prayer and try to discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit. The Pope gets the final say given that he was granted special power by Jesus.
By the way, what caused Peter to accept gentiles as full Christians?
Here's a reminder:
Acts 11
4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.....
15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
Your desperation is showing.Or so goes the RC fiction.
That revelation doesn't make him "pope," of course.
That's nice. The same does not hold for the Apostles. Not one is greater than another and not one has his throne set above the others in apocalyptic imagery.
Jesus made him leader of the church by giving him the keys of the kingdom. He was chosen by God because he was the first who was shown Christ's true identity.
This case is further evidence of his unique relationship to God among the apostles.
Without a single leader, you get anarchy, which is what you have in protestantism.
Jesus understood this, so he established a hierarchy that was to be lead through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus prayed for unity and we have it. 1.3 billion Catholics and growing.
The largest Church in the world.
Followers of the Church founded by Christ.
I spent a good while searching the Catholic Catechism and came up empty. Perhaps you would be so kind as to show us where the Catechism teaches that Matthew 16:19 is a reference to Isaiah. If you can't then will you admit that this is a novel theory which not even your Church teaches?For the record the Catholics of the RCC not only accept this explanation of the Keys but I am sure it is in the Catechism as well so it is a teaching norm.
That isn't what Chrysostom says, however. He states plainly that John is the holder of the keys.John shares in Peter's authority and the Keys and this is fine.
No. That is your interpretation which you read back into the text.But Chrysostom did state thet Peter alone received the Keys didn't he?
Which is exactly what I have demonstrated you to be doing.So you must understand his writings in their entirety and not simply the parts we like.
How did the Church at Corinth suddenly become "the Church as a whole"? You've drawn an amazing conclusion based on your misunderstanding of one situation. Assuming you are not so foolish as to decide something based on one single piece of 'evidence', I presume you will now provide us with many other examples of Churches closer to Patmos turning to Rome for help during the lifetime of the Apostle?John out lived all the Apostles and at a time when John was probably the last Apostle left alive the Church as a whole still looked to Rome for authority.
This is only obvious to Catholics who have had this drilled into them from an early age. You are incapable of thinking otherwise.Why? The most obvious answer is that Rome is where the Keys are and the seat of Peter.
Ah, since you cannot produce any Church Fathers who make the connection between Matthew and Isaiah, and you cannot produce anything from the Catholic Catechism to demonstrate that even you Church teaches this, it is now incumbent on me to prove a negative?You have still to show any proof to the contrary.
As a convert, your post is just silly.How did the Church at Corinth suddenly become "the Church as a whole"? You've drawn an amazing conclusion based on your misunderstanding of one situation. Assuming you are not so foolish as to decide something based on one single piece of 'evidence', I presume you will now provide us with many other examples of Churches closer to Patmos turning to Rome for help during the lifetime of the Apostle?
This is only obvious to Catholics who have had this drilled into them from an early age. You are incapable of thinking otherwise.
John
I'm beginning to feel real pity for you Jack.Unlike what you have been doing I consider all that they wrote and not simply the lines that fit my argument.
I have shown where Chrysostom even supports what I say or at the very least contradicts your claim.
No objective reading of the new testament can lead to any other conclusion than that Peter was given a unique position of primacy among the apostles.
I'm beginning to feel real pity for you Jack.
Chrysostom's writings and sermons are all in complete harmony with the teaching of the Orthodox Church in regards to Peter and the keys. Some of his writings however, as has been shown in this thread, are completely contradictory to the Catholic Churches teaching in regards to Peter and the keys.
The most striking thing about your post of late though, is you are guilty of precisely that which you have the gall to accuse me.
John
Peter does not receive the keys UNTIL Matthew 18:18. Matthew 16:19 is future tense, it is a promise only, the fulfillment of which does not occur until Matthew 18:18 when ALL the Apostles receive the same.Okay Brennin, Ill jump through your hoop if you require being spoon fed. A grants B does not ensure that B grants A, affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. The possession of keys granting authority to bind and loose does not ensure that the authority to bind and loose grants possession of keys, the affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. Your interpretation of Matthew 18:18 is based on logical fallacy.
And your understanding is in complete agreement with these whom Catholics consider "Doctors of the Church".I have explained to you why "keys" are not explicitly referred to in Matthew 18:18.
Thank you, friend, for reposting those statements. Apparently, the Roman Catholic apologists believe only Peter gets to bind and loose with a key; the rest of the apostles have to pick the lock.And your understanding is in complete agreement with these whom Catholics consider "Doctors of the Church".
St Jerome"...elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike". (Epistle 146.1)St Augustine"This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)St John Chrysostom"The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -(Homily 54.2-3.)As is already apparent in this thread however, this will not stop Catholic 'apologists' continuing to repeat the same error ad infinitum. They will just carry on as if the Church Fathers they claim to follow had never taught any such thing. I've already posted the above quotes at least three times in this thread. No one disputes them, no one can answer them, and yet every single Catholic in this thread continues to post contrary to them. I also have no doubt that they will continue to do so based on this thread and past experience.
John
Who said I was a convert? Why would being a convert make my post silly? Would it make a difference if I wasn't a convert? Your comment makes no sense at all.As a convert, your post is just silly.
I have not said otherwise.No objective reading of the new testament can lead to any other conclusion than that Peter was given a unique position of primacy among the apostles.
The Church speaking through the Ecumenical Councils said Rome held first place because it was the Capital of the Empire. They said nothing about Peter being the reason.In addition, you can see from the writings of the early church fathers that they acknowledged a unique authority in the seat of peter.
My Church sees clearly and is in agreement with the early Christians. I don't trust my own judgment at all.Do you think the early Christians misunderstood Christ, but you see clearly?
I have not 'claimed' anything. I have merely stated the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the same Church which uses the Divine Liturgy Of St John Chrysostom throughout the year in every nation and language, whose Paschal sermon is still read in the Church every year. He is one of the most beloved saints in the Orthodox Church yet you claim we do not understand his writings. We read his works in the original Greek whereas your Church for centuries knew his works only in Latin translation, a language with only one quarter of the vocabulary of Greek. Who of the two would understand his words better? The Greeks or the Latins?I wonder what Chrysostom would say today with the division that has happened in the Catholic Church with RCC and EOC and OOC. I am sure he would not be pleased. I also think he would be correcting much of what you have been claiming he meant in his writings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?