Thou art Peter...

[Rick Otto]

Ha! Good enough, Max.
It was just a suspicion, & I easily admit a limit to my interests (thanks for the offer). I also admit (not to start a roll...) that am entertained by your "iconography" (unless they are true self-portraits) above your moniker(lol). I wish I had more facility with the computers I access.
Anyway, if I'm not just projecting, I sense some humor here at this site, that is too precious to waste on one-upmanship chattering, as I believe do you.
I appreciate all the information you bring to this table as well, & that goes double for those who who disagree with me even more fundamentaly, since I percieve their vexation is checked before becoming vehement, and I know I need much articulation in what it is I believe myself. I only started studying Christian doctrine & history a couple of years ago in my spare time.
I'm in no condition to hold the corner on anything, but ecclesiology seems to be the crucible that contains the constellation of variables at issue in my present circumstances.
BTW, get a memo to the clergy about their being SERVANTS right away, but I think Servant Clergy is an oxymoron in concept, not just practice.

 

[dignitized]

BTW, get a memo to the clergy about their being SERVANTS right away, but I think Servant Clergy is an oxymoron in concept, not just practice.

If in your experience clergy as servant is an oxymoron, I suspect that you are not involved in the right churches. I know clergy from MANY different churches and Denominations and for the most part, they are ready, willing and DO serve the people of their congregation. The few clergy that I can think of who see themselves as ABOVE the people are all of the fundamental/evangelical/anti-catholic bent which is rather amusing since they tend to accuse the catholic clergy of lording . . . .

If you are interested in learning about Christian History, I suggest getting the Wycliffe Dictionary of theology (Harrison, Bromiley, & Henry), A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Bercot), Lives of the Popes (Richard McBrien), Church History in Plain Language (Bruce Shelley) - all of which are from Protestant authors - and for the catholic side - A Concise History of the Catholic Church (Thomas Bekenkotter) all of which give rather objective views of the History and development of Christianity.

Pax et bonum.

 

[Ratjaws]

Peter was first among EQUALS. Even Peter submitted himself to James at the Council of Jerusalem as is recorded in Scriptures. ALSO - St Augustine states that it is the confession of Peter upon which the church is built. The foundations of the church are FAITH not jelly legged peter who thrice denied Jesus Christ. I would not call him a "sure Foundation." If you read on you see that shortly after this conversation the Lord OPENLY rebukes Peter calling him SATAN. Does this sound like what one would say to a man who is called to be the foundation of the Christian Community?

Let us never forget that EVERY word of scripture is for a reason and a purpose. NOT one word is there by accident. Even in the Greek it states THIS rock.

Br. Max,

Sorry guy... I cannot agree with your opinion of "equal among equals" since St. Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom," whereas the other apostles were not.

I don't dispute that the Church is built upon Peter's confession but I certainly don't agree that it was upon that alone. I suspect you are my brother from an Orthodox community but this argument you present here is one our separated bretheran use. They typically subject Christian arguments to either/or propositions whereas our Church does not. Yes, Christ recognized St. Peter's faith which, I'm sure, is a prime reason why God chose Peter to be a leader at all. We know scripture states one cannot please God without faith. But at the same time as you correctly point out St. Peter goofed up a lot you overlook the fact that he also made the right decision at times. Of course this don't really matter as much to God as does our acceptance of faith, which is where our Protestant brothers and sisters get it right with their single minded insistance upon having faith. At the same time scripture is clear that God works through the weaker vessels best in order to show His power more clearly. So if St. Peter's "jelly legged" stance is as bad as you claim he becomes an even more perfect candidate for Christ to build His Church upon and thus... manifest His power! Nevertheless, our Lord saying to Peter "get behind me Satan" cannot be taken as though St. Pete is actually the Devil himself; or one runs into a legion of ontological problems! Rather it seems to me this text expresses a hyperbola meant to convey the seriousness of St. Peter's misguided aim. St. Peter is not Satan while at the same time he allowed himself to be moved away from Christ's goal, either because he did not understand it fully or maybe because it was a suggestion made by the Devil. Either way hasn't our omnipotent/omniscient God the power to prevent fallible St. Peter from ever making a statement of error as though dogmatic truth? I say He does which is just as the Church teaches. That God could do this for any other man is irrelevant since Christ chose Peter to give His "keys" to and no other. But what is not irrelevant is our need as human beings to have a visible person as leader of the most important institution in the universe. No one claims St. Peter is head of Christ's Church on his own accord and certainly not by his own power. Still that typically is the implication of the Protestant assertion that Catholics usurp Christ's power with that of a mere man. It is the Church's contention that the only power any man has comes from God and most certainly the power to "bind and loose" doctrine which comes from an infallible divine Being working through an infallible man.

I'm not sure where you see in Acts chapter fifteen that St. Peter "submitted" himself to St. James? What I do see is James giving the concluding remarks which were about his concerns for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, where he was bishop. Nevertheless St. James did not "silence" the assembly while St. Peter did (see verse 12). If that's not clear enough read the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts, which decribe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter, except six and seven which describe Stephen's martyrdom, show St. Peter in a leadership position while St. James appears only briefly, never in a leadership role. St. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church's important "firsts." (I can deliniate them for you if need be but I will refrain from that here for brevity's sake) Also St. Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically to confer with Peter where he stayed for fifteen days. In contrast St. Paul visited James only briefly during this time. The list of accusations go on and on from our separated bretheran as to why St. Peter cannot be the first pope. Yet the Church has answers to each of them because in reality St. Peter WAS the first pope, a servant among servants as our holy Father John Paul II puts it (Christ's term for one who is to be a leader).

I believe "EVERY word of scripture is for a reason and a purpose" and that "NOT one word is there by accident" but I leave my judgment to the Church where it concerns interpretation of those words! For it is the Church which is "the pillar and ground of truth" and not you, nor I. (1Tim.3:15) And this is what papal authority ultimately comes down to... who has the final word as to what God means when He speaks to us through revelation. If there is a problem I am willing to "take it to the Church" (Mt.18:15-20) ...how about you? I believe the "gates of hades will not prevail against my church" because Christ remains present to us through mere men ensuring that the truth be known just as He was present to those He revealed the word of God to in the first place. The Church gave us sacred scripture and it was Pope Damasus I who canonized it, thus indicating all those who accept the Christian standard of written revelation accept what a mere pope declared infallible. Or do you believe scripture is true without good reason?

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen." (Gal.6:18 RSV)

 

[ABDIarise]

Peter was first among EQUALS. Even Peter submitted himself to James at the Council of Jerusalem as is recorded in Scriptures. ALSO - St Augustine states that it is the confession of Peter upon which the church is built. The foundations of the church are FAITH not jelly legged peter who thrice denied Jesus Christ. I would not call him a "sure Foundation." If you read on you see that shortly after this conversation the Lord OPENLY rebukes Peter calling him SATAN. Does this sound like what one would say to a man who is called to be the foundation of the Christian Community?

Let us never forget that EVERY word of scripture is for a reason and a purpose. NOT one word is there by accident. Even in the Greek it states THIS rock.

I think it was mentioned before, but Paul did not acknowledge Peter in the way that the catholic church does. Although, this could be other reasons too. I read that text over and over about the keys to the kingdom and I cannot seem to derive that Jesus gave Peter anything He did not give the rest of them standing there listening that day. I guess we will not know until that glorious time when we meet Him face to face. Maybe that won't be too important

Another note of interest would be the point you make about Jesus rebuking satan that took Peter for a time. It really doesn't add up that Jesus would grant someone that so easily allowed satan in to run the body of Christ. Sometimes these type of topics get very heated....

 

[Ratjaws]

QUOTE: I think it was mentioned before, but Paul did not acknowledge Peter in the way that the catholic church does. Although, this could be other reasons too. I read that text over and over about the keys to the kingdom and I cannot seem to derive that Jesus gave Peter anything He did not give the rest of them standing there listening that day. I guess we will not know until that glorious time when we meet Him face to face. Maybe that won't be too important

Another note of interest would be the point you make about Jesus rebuking satan that took Peter for a time. It really doesn't add up that Jesus would grant someone that so easily allowed satan in to run the body of Christ. Sometimes these type of topics get very heated....




ABDlarise,
Thanks for your thoughts. They are very penetrating and to the point. Of course what you've just said is maybe the most important reason for the existence of a visible head in Christ's Church.

"I guess we will not know until that glorious time when we meet Him face to face. Maybe that won't be too important."

You see doctrinal confusion exists precisely because we have so many voices within the Christian body claiming they "know what the bible says." Of course one person or group's idea of "truth" contained in the bible conflicts with what others may say and often times in serious areas. St. Peter was aware of this problem, as any thinking person should be, when he wrote: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2Pet.3:16 NIV) So this is why Christ gave to the Church, His Church, a means to settle disputes besides speaking to an invisible Spirit which each of us has a hard time hearing and distinguishing from other voices in our head. We all have the world, the Devil, and our own voice running through our head in addition to the Holy Spirit. All this makes discerning when we "hear" the Holy Spirit harder, if not impossible. Even with reading scripture we must make subjective decisions based upon how we think the bible should be interpreted (which is in fact the reason Christians say they have the Holy Spirit). Unfortunate the problem is it becomes a vicious circle where scripture is the Holy Spirit's voice, so to speak, and we need the HS to interpret the scripture! The only way out is for God to have provided an audible voice which we will have no trouble going to, hearing and trusting. (see Mt.18:15-20, 1Tim.3:15) So this is why Christ gave St. Peter "the keys to the kingdom" in order to settle disputes and differences of opinion, etc.

Also the Catholic understanding says Jesus handed the apostles "the good deposit" (2Tim.1:14 NIV) or His whole teaching and they faithfully passed it on to their successors. So in all times and all places the same thing is taught by the bishops as was taught to the apostles. The Protestant understanding says what Christ handed the apostles is all found in the bible yet even the bible says much of what Christ did was not recorded. (Jn.20:30-31, 21:24-25) The claim is that "we all can read the bible for ourselves" and know God's intentions in all areas does not work out in real life, as attested to by some 30,000 denominations competing with each other today. What is true here for the apostles was true for St. Peter and likewise between the bishops and the pope. Only there is one guarantee that St. Peter had (and thus successive popes) which the apostles did not... and this concerns the "keys" or infallibility of the pope (the visible head) when he pronounces doctrine concerning faith and morals. As a side note did you know only two infallible statements have ever been formally made? Still the rest of what the Church teaches must be believed with full mind and will in order to be saved (and this is judged by God according to how well we understand and keep the faith).

You indicate "I read that text over and over about the keys to the kingdom and I cannot seem to derive that Jesus gave Peter anything He did not give the rest of them standing there listening that day." Of course you assume Christ gave the keys to all those standing there when the text does not make this explicit. So right here we need a way to resolve a difference of opinion, and a serious one at that! Hence, we come back to Papal Supremacy and the need for a visible head as means to resolve such potentially serious disputes. I'm sure you can't believe interpretation of scripture is a small thing and we can all just agree to disagree (and wait "until that glorious time when we meet Him face to face" before we know what the "keys" mean). This only invites the sectarian division we see manifest in the Church today since the so called Reformation.

"It really doesn't add up that Jesus would grant someone that so easily allowed satan in to run the body of Christ." On the contrary... it does add up if one remembers that God (Christ) is able to work around our bad judgments, even our bad intentions. God will carry out His plan to save those who choose God's way despite our faults. So for me it seems a small extension of this principle to believe that God prevents the pope from ever pronouncing as "faith or morals" what is in reality error.

Finally, St. Paul (in the book of Galatians) was not arguing with St. Peter over doctrinal matters but rather disciplinary. The Church teaches that doctrine can NEVER change while the way the Church disciplines the faithful is subject to circumstance. In this case St. Peter was teaching no one needed to be circumcised anymore, yet practicing this old covenant custom whenever he was with fellow Jews. It's not that it was wrong to do so because even St. Paul said that circumcision meant nothing from a spiritual perspective but he was worried about how it looked to other new Christians (or pagans) around them. St. Paul is very explicit about how we should not cause our weaker brother to fall by what we say and do and sometimes it is necessary for us to abstain from even things we CAN do (such as eating meat offered to idols because the idols were not real gods) to save the soul of another person.

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas!

In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity!

 

[Ratjaws]

LOL,
Br.Max, from your picture & our discussiom on Nicolaitanism, I was suspecting you of BEING Catholic!
My mistake.
I'm sure I may be jumping to some conclusions here, but from the webmaster's Arminian position statement, Luchnia was banned for "calling a spade a spade" somewhere along the line. I hope I haven't just indicted myself by association, but if the shoe fits...

I had to laugh when I read Ratjaw's name & saw his picture! No lack of irony there.
Unselfconcious self-parody. Priceless.
But I have to say the depth of rationalization along with the strain on capacity for civility has been entertaining. It seems to stress the most, those who are most willing to claim & exert authority over those scripture identifies as brothers to be served.
Idolization can be as subtle as semantics, but the preponderance of circumstantial evidence speaks more plainly & louder than any of the pharisiacal professions, drowned as it were, in their ritual ceremonies, and other visible evidences of the faith they profess to have. Thus the elevation of tradition to the level of scripture.
Christ calls us out, men call us in.

"Thus the Church holds firm to reality while Her separated members, that one in ninety-nine stray sheep, wander in doctrinal confusion with the end result of widespread sectarian division and a poorer witness to the world than Christ wills. Case closed!"
-I think the actual numbers won't support the 1-in-99 correlation, & that doctrinal confusion & sectarian division were invented by Catholics & adopted by Protestants and, to think either is better than the other is to confuse Christianity with "Churchianity".
I hope it doesn't offend your sense of authority too much, if I decide for myself if the case is "closed".

Who was it that said "God trusted men to write the scripture"? He did no such thing, God knows better than to place His trust in men. Instead, He places his inspiration in them, & trusts that. Their is nothing in men worthy of trust, other than that they are untrustworthy. That's why we need a savior, not a pope.

Rick,

Shall we consider you to remain honest as you mock me or will you simply deal with my defense of the Church's historic teaching? Actually I am quite conscious of my chosen screen name and picture of the holy Father. While you may think the relation funny I meant no association at all. I simply choose my cat's nickname for a screen name in memory and love for him. This applies to the picture of John Paul II also whom I have a great deal of respect and love for. Your comments are reminscient of those made by the likes of Bottener, Dave Hunt, and Jack Chick whose world view and writings show little respect for those they disagree with.

First off, can you please define Christianity and "churchianity?" The former I think I would recognize, the latter I don't even find in a dictionary (let alone the bible alone!). I assume it is not a term of endearment. I don't doubt there are both Catholics and Protestants who are confused regarding Christian teaching. But the point is not who's confused, rather where do we go to lift that confusion? To "the bible alone" or to the Church who gave us scripture in the first place? I say the latter because the former is not found in scripture itself and the Church was instituted by Christ who said hell will never prevail over Her (not the bible).

So let's see... is "I decide for myself" in the bible? Wouldn't that make US the pope if we all decide for ourselves what the bible means? How many chefs can a kitchen have and still function? Seems to me the case is closed because God has the final word and left it with His Church, not YOU nor me! I think the scriptural verses I've put forth in these dialogues bear me out on this point. Will any who disagree here confront them directly???

Ok, so God puts trust in His inspiration alone... where do you find that in scripture? But allow me give you the benefit of the doubt. If God inspires men and trusts that inspiration when it comes to writing scripture can't the same thing be said of determining the meaning of that inspired text? If so isn't this exactly what Catholics are saying... that the Holy Spirit works through men via inspiration! That even though a man may be fallible, concupicable and not impeccible, God can get His Mind across despite the "mereness" of men. Isn't this what we are saying girds up a pope's "opinion" when it comes faith and morals? Of course it is and I suspect you know it but would rather die than admit to a Catholic teaching ...most likely because you've accepted hook, line and sinker, what your human teachers have taught you! No man can understand everything the bible teaches by using the bible alone and if it were possible I have yet to see a man demonstrate it by never touching another book or listening to another human perspective... it's impossible! And don't tell me it's the Holy Spirit because that same Spirit resides in all of us and if you claim that Spirit is just in you and not those who oppose you then doesn't that make you alone God's child, since everyone will oppose you on some doctrine at some point in time?

If there is "nothing worthy in men" where does this leave Christ? Or maybe He was not true God... true man? It's not that Christ who was sinless proves men can't live without sinning. NO, rather He provides a model AND proof that men can live without sinning... IF they wish to and embrace the faith and grace God gives them. If this were not true then either Christ could not be a true human being... or we are not true human beings... both propositions of which are absurd. If "Christ calls us out, men call us in" in the sense you imply here then the apostles could never call anyone out... YET St. Paul did just that! Do men have to be sinless in order to receive and write scripture down and obtain our trust? If so then we've got no bible! If not then your case is an extreme and not true to reality of Christ's Church.

I quote you: "It seems to stress the most, those who are most willing to claim & exert authority over those scripture identifies as brothers to be served." Serve what? The gospel of Christ. For whom? For men. Why? So that they will know the truth. How? By guarding and teaching God's word. How do we know what God's word is? Christ gave it to us through His Church. How do we know what it means when there seems to be so many conflicting opinions? By listening to the Church which is "the pillar and ground of truth." (1Tim.3:15) How do we know the Church interprets correctly? "The Spirit will guide you into all truth! Is the Church a single man or all men who enter Her? All men represented by a single man when it comes to dogma concerning faith or morals. One head many members (animated by one Spirit). How do we know this is true? The bible says so (Mt.16:18-19, Isaiah 22:15-25, Mt.18:15-20).

We are back full circle... If the Holy Spirit resides in all the members, including those visible, then either the body of Christ has a visible head or it does not. If not then this analogy of St. Paul is a poor one and cannot be taken literally which leaves us with how do we determine how to take it (back to that viscious circle of how do we know... bible alone anyone?). If it does then it seems the head would lead the members and not the other way around as this is how our body really works. This way the analogy does not violate what common sense and sound reason tells us is true, that we are a body/soul composite. That our visible head leads our visible body members. Partly spiritual, partly physical. Partly invisible, partly visible! Nor does common sense or reason violate the faith since God gives us the capacity for all three. As the spirit of man animates his body so too the Holy Spirit animates the body of Christ.

I quote: " Thus the elevation of tradition to the level of scripture." Is it that Catholics elevate or Protestants degrade tradition to take scripture "alone?" What about St. Paul's words:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2Thes.2:15 RSV) I encourage my separated bretheran to check the Greek word translated as "tradition" here and compare to the word many Protestant translations substitute as "teaching." The truth sets us free! Even if one still rejects tradition being used here you still have to get around the phrase "by word of mouth" which is one way the Church defines the word "Tradition." I rest my case again. Do you have any scriptural case that does not violate reason or our faith or two-thousand years of historic teaching?

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

 

[dignitized]

Br. Max,

Sorry guy... I cannot agree with your opinion of "equal among equals" since St. Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom," whereas the other apostles were not.

They weren't? Read Matthew 18. They were ALL given the power of Binding and loosening.

I suspect you are my brother from an Orthodox community but this argument you present here is one our separated bretheran use.

Actually, No I'm not Orthodox. I belong to a Latin Rite Church. We're just not Ultramontanists.

Nevertheless, our Lord saying to Peter "get behind me Satan" cannot be taken as though St. Pete is actually the Devil himself;

OF COURSE That does not mean that Peter is the Devil Himself - But look at the text. Peter pulls the Lord aside PRIVATELY and rebukes him. The Lord Responds by turning to the gathered Apostles and Rebuking Peter PUBLICALLY. NOW - does that sound like the Lord intended to present Peter as his unquestioned successor of authority on this earth?

But what is not irrelevant is our need as human beings to have a visible person as leader of the most important institution in the universe.

Christ is my visible head. Every time I sit in church and look Straight Ahead I see the Lord sitting Enthroned in the Tabernacle FRONT AND CENTER. He rules. He Reigns. The Bishop is at best Chamberlain. And the highest biblical office the pope can claim is that of bishop.

The list of accusations go on and on from our separated bretheran as to why St. Peter cannot be the first pope.

By definition of the TERMS of the office of the "pope" Peter was NEVER pope. First of all the pope is a Bishop. which are the Successors to the Apostles. Peter being an Apostle cannot have been a "Successors to the Apostles." Secondly, for the first centuries of the Papacy, the pope was titled the VICAR OF PETER. Its not until the second millennium of the church that the a pope finally claims to be vicar of Christ. NOW, how could Peter be the "vicar of peter?"

I believe "EVERY word of scripture is for a reason and a purpose" and that "NOT one word is there by accident" but I leave my judgment to the Church where it concerns interpretation of those words! For it is the Church which is "the pillar and ground of truth" and not you, nor I. (1Tim.3:15) And this is what papal authority ultimately comes down to... who has the final word as to what God means when He speaks to us through revelation. If there is a problem I am willing to "take it to the Church" (Mt.18:15-20) ...how about you?

Yes of course. Lets call a general council of the church. Lets get the WHOLE church together and we'll decided if the Popes claims to primacy are correct. But then, there has not been a true general council since before 1054. humm . . . . .

I believe the "gates of hades will not prevail against my church"

I believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail against THE church. And since MY church like YOUR church is a part of THE church, so long as we all strive to maintain the truth of facts and purity of Doctrine - atleast ONE of us will remain true and the Church will prevail.

God bless

Pax et bonum

 

[Rick Otto]

Feel free to consider me honest as freely as you disregard all but the associations you yourself make in your selection of associations, be they names w/pictures or anything else. If it's permission you need, mine you have. And fail to see any connection of that with your defense of "the church's" historic teaching, if that suits you as well(I'm sure it does).
"Shows" of respect are the bread & butter of the nicolaitanes who divide the body from brothers into clergy & laity. Pardon me if I forgot to kiss anyone's pinky ring. Have a sense of humor. It will lessen the burden and need for shows.
You reveal much by saying it was the church who gave us scripture. Scripture existed before the church did. And Sola Scriptura is based on scriptures as I assume you know, so you're saying it isn't in the bible is either disingenuous or "disrespectful" (to use your word) of issues we disagree upon.

"Deciding for yourself" was in re: to whether or not the case is closed, but it applies, because no one decides for us who or what we believe, excepting God Himself. Even when your decision-maker is appointed, desicions have to, & are being made as to whom, and certainly human consideration is given to what they believe. Certainly the church was instituted by Christ, but His model didn't divide the body into clergy & laity. So YES, that (in a narrow sense) DOES make us all "popes" (priests) as surely as we are all to be Kings & priests, as I'm sure you've read in scripture.
How can God leave His word to the Church WITHOUT leaving it to you & me, unless we're not in His Church?


"Ok, so God puts trust in His inspiration alone... where do you find that in scripture?"
I didn't say God puts His trust in His inspiration alone, I said He knows better than to put it in men. Where did you find that in my post?


" If God inspires men and trusts that inspiration when it comes to writing scripture can't the same thing be said of determining the meaning of that inspired text?"
Yes, that is scriptural.

"If so isn't this exactly what Catholics are saying... that the Holy Spirit works through men via inspiration!"
-Not exactly. Only thru THEIR men.

"That even though a man may be fallible, concupicable and not impeccible, God can get His Mind across despite the "mereness" of men. Isn't this what we are saying girds up a pope's "opinion" when it comes faith and morals?"
-That is said, & much, much more. If only it was left at that, no problem.
Popes have become "more equal" to borrow a phrase from "Animal Farm".

"Of course it is and I suspect you know it but would rather die than admit to a Catholic teaching ...most likely because you've accepted hook, line and sinker, what your human teachers have taught you! No man can understand everything the bible teaches by using the bible alone and if it were possible I have yet to see a man demonstrate it by never touching another book or listening to another human perspective... it's impossible!"
-HEY! Get it straight! I'M the one arguing against a singular human authority over scriptural interpretation here, not you. I haven't rejected their council, just the silly idea of official infallibility even occaisionally with props & regalia.
Even Catholics have to have a truth to provide a framework for error.

"And don't tell me it's the Holy Spirit because that same Spirit resides in all of us and if you claim that Spirit is just in you and not those who oppose you then doesn't that make you alone God's child, since everyone will oppose you on some doctrine at some point in time?"
People with the Holy Spirit in them can disagree on doctrine. If Paul hadn't authoritatively done so, "Pope" Peter would have us all circumcized & eating kosher.

"If there is "nothing worthy in men" where does this leave Christ?
-It leaves Him as our saviour.

"Or maybe He was not true God... true man?"
-Neither of those options could be true.

"It's not that Christ who was sinless proves men can't live without sinning. NO, rather He provides a model AND proof that men can live without sinning... IF they wish to and embrace the faith and grace God gives them."
-Yes He provides a model, but none can achieve it, tho it be our Christian duty to try, so saying we can live sinless is radical pride.


"If this were not true then either Christ could not be a true human being... or we are not true human beings... both propositions of which are absurd."
Yes. Absurd as believing any of us are EVER are without sin, even if it has been forgiven.

"If "Christ calls us out, men call us in" in the sense you imply here then the apostles could never call anyone out... YET St. Paul did just that!"
-Paul wasn't doing the calling, just the preaching.

"Do men have to be sinless in order to receive and write scripture down and obtain our trust?"
-No. Peter was a good example of this.

" If so then we've got no bible! If not then your case is an extreme and not true to reality of Christ's Church."
-Certainly not true to the reality of what YOU call "Christ's Church".
Re-read Isa22:23-25. It works against your argument. The "nail" (man) fastened in place (leader-keyholder) gets REMOVED, and even the OFFICE(the burden placed upon it) is removed.

"As the spirit of man animates his body so too the Holy Spirit animates the body of Christ."
-If you can believe that, how do you give "the visible head" credit for leading the visible body.
Christ is the head. He became visible, and still lives in His resurrected body.
why replace Him with a pope? I say it's for the same reason Isreal wanted a visible king.
"Do you have any scriptural case that does not violate reason or our faith or two-thousand years of historic teaching?"
-Obviously, we have different ideas of what traditions Paul was teaching.
I don't think You can appropriately use the term "our faith", because it is so different at its foundation.

 

[dignitized]

There are many who cry LORD LORD and know him not. There are many spirits besides the Holy Spirit, many spirits that decieve the hearts and minds of men. You are convinced Otto that WE are decieved. If that is the case you have to also allow that YOU could be the one decieved.

 

[ABDIarise]

Unfortunate the problem is it becomes a vicious circle where scripture is the Holy Spirit's voice, so to speak, and we need the HS to interpret the scripture! The only way out is for God to have provided an audible voice which we will have no trouble going to, hearing and trusting. (see Mt.18:15-20, 1Tim.3:15) So this is why Christ gave St. Peter "the keys to the kingdom" in order to settle disputes and differences of opinion, etc.

I do thank you for your well thought out post. I agree this is a vicious circle and in my life I cannot see where it will end anytime soon, but maybe that is a good thing. As long as there are disagreemants, there probably will be much study and reasoning of God's wonderful word.

In your selection of an "audible voice" you have implied that this is why Christ chose Peter, although there still is nothing that affirms this. We were not "on the scene" that day when Jesus was speaking to "them." We do not know if He (Jesus) was giving the keys to Peter, or all the men.

We simply do not know, and at best we can only speculate that Christ gave the keys to Peter. It is just as possible that the keys were given to all of them that day. There really is no way to tell as we were not there that day. If only we had a snapshot view this whole story might be different for us.

I would ask you though, do you feel that it is possible Jesus were speaking to "them," as a whole since the text makes that implication at first part? I mean the first part of the text states, "them." Is that even remotely possible from the text?

You do mention an audible voice though, and again it would appear that Paul was more the candidate for that audible voice as he was a "chosen vessel" and he bore Jesus' name in a most magnificent way. It is notable that Paul was one chosen out of time and was chosen above Peter in many ways where the gospel is concerned. I know one other individual had posted about Paul and others that could have done this, but I have not seen any more post from them.

In my opinion, I feel the men were equal as the one previous poster put it, but I am not in a position of authority to do anything but comment about it. I dont' think the men allowed themselves to be placed in a place that would allow for one to be "over" the other as we might see it today. I do not want to discredit Peter if he was somehow in such a place as the ruler, or head.

Maybe one day we will know the truths of these things and we will no longer have that vicious circle that is like a merry-go-round.

 

[Rick Otto]

Max, I DO allow that I may be decieved.
That's one good reason I would never institutionalize my positions with property & hierarchies.
I can even allow that Jesus may have been addressing Peter in a personal way, WHILE He was afddressing the rest of 'em in the boat. His remarks to Peter were intended both for Peter's ears AND the others. In identifying with each other, even in the narrower sense of apostleship, rather than in the larger sense as brothers, the responsibilities and duties were both delegated AND shared along with the rest of providence. The "specialness" of having singled out Peter could serve both as a commendation of his strengths, as well as an indictment of weakness, him being the "lowest common denominator" among them (if PETER can do it, I can do it)-Thomas doubted, but NONE of them denied Christ 3 times in scripture.

I think the vicious circle is meant to be. We must wrestle with scripture just as Jacob wrestled with the Lord.

 

[dignitized]

Rick: the circle is broken if you have the scriptural forumla for verifying truth.

 

[Ratjaws]

I do thank you for your well thought out post. I agree this is a vicious circle and in my life I cannot see where it will end anytime soon, but maybe that is a good thing. As long as there are disagreemants, there probably will be much study and reasoning of God's wonderful word.

In your selection of an "audible voice" you have implied that this is why Christ chose Peter, although there still is nothing that affirms this. We were not "on the scene" that day when Jesus was speaking to "them." We do not know if He (Jesus) was giving the keys to Peter, or all the men.

We simply do not know, and at best we can only speculate that Christ gave the keys to Peter. It is just as possible that the keys were given to all of them that day. There really is no way to tell as we were not there that day. If only we had a snapshot view this whole story might be different for us.

I would ask you though, do you feel that it is possible Jesus were speaking to "them," as a whole since the text makes that implication at first part? I mean the first part of the text states, "them." Is that even remotely possible from the text?
You do mention an audible voice though, and again it would appear that Paul was more the candidate for that audible voice as he was a "chosen vessel" and he bore Jesus' name in a most magnificent way. It is notable that Paul was one chosen out of time and was chosen above Peter in many ways where the gospel is concerned. I know one other individual had posted about Paul and others that could have done this, but I have not seen any more post from them.

In my opinion, I feel the men were equal as the one previous poster put it, but I am not in a position of authority to do anything but comment about it. I dont' think the men allowed themselves to be placed in a place that would allow for one to be "over" the other as we might see it today. I do not want to discredit Peter if he was somehow in such a place as the ruler, or head.

Maybe one day we will know the truths of these things and we will no longer have that vicious circle that is like a merry-go-round.

ABDIarise,

Hello again. I think what you've said here is yet more reason why it's imperative Christians see Christ's Church as the Catholic Church embodies. You've stated you think it is a vicious circle and add "in my life I cannot see where it will end anytime soon, but maybe that is a good thing?" Confusion and lack of knowing truth are not good things. As human beings made in the image of God we want to know and strive for certainty in all our knowledge. It is our nature to want to know. Disagreements don't necessarily cause people to desire "study and reasoning of God's wonderful word." Their thirst for truth given them at their inception does and to the degree it is not stunted by Original Sin and it's effects, concupiscense and irrasibility, is the degree a person desires truth. Truth is conformity of our mind to reality and as such the measure of truth is real being all around us, both created and Uncreated. Thus, disagreement comes when people don't fully know truth. Disagreements exist where reality is not properly, coherently or completely understood. We all therefore are desirous of knowing all that exists around us and since all creatures point to God, we ultimately desire to know God. This is the most subtle and intimate definition of love. Love being our intellectual appetite or attraction to the good in being. You may recall in the gospels Christ saying "only God is good," a type of statement (hyperbola) that exaggerates to make a point. Jesus in pointing to our Father and God as being the only "Good" meant all being that has any goodness in it had it's source or cause in God. Creatures all share God's goodness in some degree precisely because they are participated being and so when we encounter created being we are drawn to it because of it's participated goodness. This is the same as saying we are drawn to God through all creatures because they reflect their Creator's infinite perfections. Human beings having a rational immaterial soul participate more fully in God's nature by virtue of that likeness and therefore more fully and perfectly reflect God's goodness. So our desire to know creation (natural revelation) and "God's wonderful word" (divine revelation) is due to our innate attraction to that Ultimate Good we know as God, manifest fully, bodily, in Jesus Christ, His Son. To emphasize this point remember Christ said "I am the way the truth and the life..." and so our seeking truth which is an imperfect reflection of the Truth, is a natural desire for what is only temporal, should always lead to us to more fevently want of that Infinite Mind which is the end and resting place of all our strivings. That is until one factors in Original Sin and our fallen, weakened or distorted desire.

Your next couple paragraphs assume communication of truth is not possible with human beings. Behind it is a flawed view of human nature that says at the Fall our nature was so distorted that it cannot reliably transmit truth, or it's corollary, knowledge. At it's worst this is Calvin's perspective of fallen man which even Luther held to some degree. The Church has always taught human nature is wounded but not to the degree that we are no longer human because as I delinated above our nature is to desire and know the Truth. We know that Ultimate Truth through created truth which reflects the perfections within God. If we cannot desire or know at all, if our nature is that corrupt, then we would not be human, which you should see is impossible as it goes against reason. I also find present in your comments a very subtle skepticism which I find latent in society. It is a serious problem, I think, that can only be overcome by God's grace. Doubt is not skepticism and doubt leads us to further investigation while skepticism leads us to disinterest and ultimately despair or lack of hope.

So on the contrary we do know what Christ taught and we know this PRECISELY because He instituted a Church to pass it on. To me this is the Protestant mistake. It's a mistake that leaves Christians vunerable to our cultural errors which as I've just said is skeptical and lithurgic about many important issues. Too many! The point being salvation is so serious a subject that it is incredible to me that God would have left knowing how to be saved a **** shoot (even Einstein who was a pantheist that saw the wonder and awe of the universe stated "God does not play dice!"). If we don't have a way to know "what one must do to be saved" as Christ taught, then we end up without certainty in an area of life where our end depends upon a certain knowledge to arrive there. To me that we don't have certainty makes God unjust. He requires us to know how to be saved in order to be saved yet neglects to provide a viable means. Of course the Protestant argument is that God provided us with this with scripture. But as I've argued with others, this only begs the question of how one knows what scripture really says? Well again the Protestant argument is that the Holy Spirit shows us. The Spirit of God will guide us into all truth! But that don't hold water because even as we all have that same Spirit we can still get it wrong (and this is proven out in real life by observing that we have over 30,000 Christian denominations... ALL claiming to know the truth YET contradicting each other!). The standard answer I hear for even this complaint (against the HS alone) is that "they don't really have the Holy Spirit," ...in other words "like I do!" This is only the seed of division within the Christian body which goes against scripture itself, as well as Christ's will (recall, Jesus prayed "that they may be one" as the Father and He were one). So the Protestant principle of "sola scriptura" (and "sola Spiritus) leads us to never know what the truth is in many important and hard to understand areas of salvation. Salvation concerns both life here after and here so it is vitally important that we have a means to know the truth concerning what Christ taught the apostles AND know it with certainty.

Now this is where the Church says that what Christ taught the apostles over 2000 years ago was passed on in all it's integrity to this day. And the guarantee we have is not in the Holy Spirit "alone" in the sense Protestants teach, rather in the Holy Spirit as He moves men (and women) in the Church toward truth. In other words what was given to the twelve apostles they taught and passed and faithfully and so preserved Christ's words for all generations to come. This idea requires succession of teachers, who must also be guardians of the same truth they teach. It required the apostles not to have understood perfectly all that Christ taught them but only that they pass it on faithfully... DESPITE their fallibility! It requires a fevent faith akin to what Protestant denominations preach but NOT "faith alone" since that would also be unscriptural. (Jam.2:24, 26)

Thus, they must of had some means for correction, some guide for their intellectual grasp of truth and their conscience (which discerns right from wrong) and thereby some way in which Christ's teaching would remain constant. It had to be handed on in all it's integrity from generation to generation. Thus the guarantee Christ gave was to HIS Church, via St. Peter AND the apostles. NOT one or the other, but both! Not to each of us directly but via "mere" men whom God would not control like robots, rather prevent from ever pronouncing error as though truth. Each man with a role as dictated by the office he held within the Church. The text in Matthew 16 CLEARLY says Christ gave St. Peter "the keys to the kingdom" since Jesus was talking specifically to Peter. Christ had just addressed the other apostles who gave various answers to the question He posed about His identity. Yet not one of them was correct in the sense Jesus was looking for. Not until He asked St. Peter the same question and after he answered it correctly, did Jesus rename Peter a "rock." Remember Christ told St. Peter it was God who revealed this to him. Whether Christ meant a large or small rock is irrelevant to the ultimate point of the text (and as has already been well explained in this thread by someone else, the type of rock Christ referred to was probably large since we know historically that place had a huge cliff nearby - the idea was a solid foundation to build upon - Christ the Architect builds upon St. Peter's confession of faith and knowledge of truth, his recognition that he was talking to God Almighty embodied in flesh standing there before them, his acknowledgement of the mystery standing before him!).

The proof is in the pudding as they say and it's been over 2000 years, yet the Church's teaching has never changed, not even one iota! Of course the Church has not stood still since She's a living organism, composed of living human beings animated by the Spirit of Christ. So doctrine has developed as the late Cardinal Newman once wrote. That seed Christ gave the apostles grew and the acorn blossomed into a huge tree (note: an acorn tree!). And this is what Protestantism fails to recognize when viewing Catholic teaching which prompts them to exclaim "see... that manmade Church has changed!" But that's because They aren't distinquishing between doctrine changes and understanding of doctrine. They don't see that the essence of the Church's teaching remains the same while our comprehension of it grows. Then too the holy Father does not "make" doctrine but guards and promulgates it to all Christians who care to know. He does so with the certainty Christ's Holy Spirit can give! So if what the Church teaches is not true or has less the full certainty, it's would have to be God's fault... NOT man's! It has to be because it's Christ's Church and not any particular man's. But by definition the Church IS composed of both men and God... something which Protestants conviently forget when it comes to papal protection. Yet as I've just worked through without the Petrine Promise we have NO guarantee that what we believe (from the bible or oral tradition) is what Christ actually taught (meant for the written and oral tradition to mean).

continued...

 

[Ratjaws]

continued from ABDlarise

So as for the possibility of Jesus speaking to "them" in the text... SURE! You can make anything you want to of that text. But be forewarned, however you choose to interpret it does not change history one bit. What happened happened and no matter how we icegete the bible (read into it). What we should be doing though is to exegete scripture (read out from it what is already there). And this is exactly what the Church does, GUARANTEED, by the Holy Spirit. So Jesus uses fallible men to transmit infallibly His word! Does this seem impossible to you? If so then wouldn't God causing fallible men to write scripture down without error also be impossible by the same token? How about men choosing the canon of scripture? How do we know that the bible we have is God's word? Because the bible says so??? That's circular reasoning and it only begs the question. In God's word Moses asked how will the Pharoh know you sent me? God replies just tell them I said so... the Great "I AM" said so! God gave His word. So it is God who determines and guarantees what truth is. The bible does not in the sense that the bible is God because it is only a book. If the bible is equivelant to God then we need to bow down and worship it. Are you prepared to do that? Will you worship this book we call the holy bible? I will not adore a book, even the bible, but I still know the bible is God's word... in other words it represents God just as these words I now write to you represent me. They represent my mind as God's word in the bible represent God's Mind. Yet my words as well as the bible's words can be mistaken and misinterpreted and if you deny this then you must explain how there can be so many denominations all competing against each other? They all have the same book, the same Spirit and the same love for God. And you must do this without demonizing all your Christian brothers and sisters. You cannot say they just don't have the Holy Spirit. Nor can you say they have the Holy Spirit but aren't listening as well as you because this would ultimately mean only you can clearly recognize and hear the Holy Spirit's voice. And if this is true then you make yourself out to be what you claim no "mere man" can be... POPE! Infallible! But if you say we all know in part then can the truth of salvation be known fully? For sure??? If not then how can we be saved? The only answer is that Christ gave us His Church which has His authority to guard and interpret scripture and teach it to the rest of us who love God and desire to know the truth.
One last point, have you ever noticed in the old testament where several Isrealites got mad at Moses for claiming to speak for God? They had the same attitude Protestants have today toward the pope who also claims to speak for God. And I've been told there is no scriptural presedence for a man claiming to know what God says. Christ gave the Jews Moses as their leader and guide under the old covenant and St. Peter as their new covenant spokesman. Your comment, "In my opinion, I feel the men were equal as the one previous poster put it, but I am not in a position of authority to do anything but comment about it," only goes to show you are more affected by our culture which pushes egalitarianism and individual autonomy than by God's word. No where in scripture were roles eradicated while at the same time emphasis was placed on the equality of all human beings as rooted in their nature. Christ created us with different gifts (charisms) in order to use in different roles within the Church (and life) thus manifesting a real inequality. What undergirds and protects each person in these differing roles is their equality of nature which begets a sanctity that is inviolable. Proof of this dual nature, our equality/inequality can be found in the Church's undying voice that calls all men to treat all their human brothers and sisters with equal dignity. The Church has never changed Her stance on social issues that tear apart the fabric of our society today and this stance is known through the moral teachings which are concrete applications of the faith. She continues to speak out against important issues of life like contraception, sterilization, abortion, cloning, in vitro fertilization, genetic experimentation, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, and so on... whereas other Protestant denominations have all strayed (and some come back) in their teaching on these matters. This was the straw that broke the camel's back when I was determining whether or not to come back to the holy Catholic faith. It was proof positive for me that God works through the Church to keep Her teaching immutable. I reject the agnosticism you hold for these and many other reasons too numerous to lay out here but would be happy to answer any questions you have concerning the Church and our faith.

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

 

[dignitized]

wow long post. Some one wanna give me the abbreviated version?

 

[KennySe]

When God changes someone's name, God then says what He shall do with that person.

Gen 17:5
No longer shall you be called Abram; your name shall be Abraham, for I am making you the father of a host of nations.

Matthew 16: 18 and 19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[dignitized]

Kenny: that would be true if that were the case with the other people in the bible who's names he changed. There are three others in Scriptures who had their names changed.

 

[Rick Otto]

"The proof is in the pudding as they say and it's been over 2000 years, yet the Church's teaching has never changed, not even one iota! "
LOL
"Of course the Church has not stood still since She's a living organism, composed of living human beings animated by the Spirit of Christ. So doctrine has developed as the late Cardinal Newman once wrote. That seed Christ gave the apostles grew and the acorn blossomed into a huge tree (note: an acorn tree!)."
Actually it was a mustard seed, not an acorn. The seed meant to grow into a small plant, has nbecome large as a tree, where birds (Seed stealers, false doctrines) have come to roost.

" And this is what Protestantism fails to recognize when viewing Catholic teaching which prompts them to exclaim "see... that manmade Church has changed!" But that's because They aren't distinquishing between doctrine changes and understanding of doctrine. "
-"Same difference", as Hoosiers in Indiana say.
You fail to see that your understanding of doctrine IS your doctrine. When your understanding of doctrine changes, so does your doctrine. It is exactly this kind of blind rationalizing that enables the traditions of men to make the word of God to no effect.
"They don't see that the essence of the Church's teaching remains the same while our comprehension of it grows"
We ARE the curch. Our comprehension IS the church's comprehension. We don't follow doctrines we don't understand. Following REQUIRES an understanding, even if not an intellectual understanding. Teaching a doctrine REQUIRES understanding, or it is not teaching, just parroting.
Understanding you don't understand doesn't bring you closer to the truth, it just allows you to see how wrong you are.
99.9% of Protestant churches have reverted to Cannon 9 thru Arminianism. The fact that they don't understand that doesn't change the fact they they are following a Catholic doctrine.
You seperate teaching & understanding as easily as you seperate "the Church" from "us"
Look again:
"They don't see that the essence of the Church's teaching remains the same while our comprehension of it grows"
The church's teaching & "our comprehension" - the nicolaitane seperation of brothers into clergy & laity is a stronghold needing to be torn down.