A Faith question

[jmcrae]

This is not a new argument. And to a Catholic it may sound very profounding and I guess that is okay. You can believe that (Take note, it still takes faith)

You are still assuming many things there. Was that verse really seen that way until Rome invoked it? Just that is a question discussed so many times.

Secondly, claiming Peter is one thing. But history does not show he was the first Pope. History has never even proved he was in Rome in the first place. I do concede, it is possible but we should distinguish very clearly between FACT and ASSUMPTION (Even if possible) here. So no, the history part is very vague on this one. And that doesn’t even address the inconsistencies in the line. Popes being chosen because the Holy Roman Emperor wished it. Popes elections being annulled because major Catholic Empires in Europe actually had a veto and another being chosen because a dove sat on his shoulder? So yea, history doesn’t prove anything here.

And this is also assuming Church = Catholic Church (the structure and hierarchy) while to me the Church of Jesus is very much present.

So no, the mandate isn’t that simple and “just there” because of Mt 16:18. And I haven’t even started on the Orthodox yet? Also an Apostolic Church who never understood the mandate this way?

This is somewhat more intricate than you seem to realise. Unless you take it by faith, which is perfectly fine with me

Regards

If Jesus said, Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock and upon this rock I will establish my church, for the purpose of establishing a leaderless and invisible church, I would love to understand how that makes sense. I also want to know why if Peter was not supposed to be the leader, why did Jesus emphasize to him three times, “Feed my sheep”?

Or, if Peter was being given charge over some different eternal and everlasting, world reknowned “city set up on a hill” then where is that church today? And how did his name end up at the top of St. Irenaeus’s list of the Popes in Againt the Heresies? (He died in 202 AD -are you going to say that the true Church of Christ was already gone by that time?)

 

[PJM]

You know all of this. Protesting against the Catholics of the time against very real problems (of the time). Even a simple knowledge of Luther would make it it clear, he never wanted to break away. He rather felt the issues needed to be addressed. Sadly Rome just wouldn’t listen and made him out as a lunatic. Maybe that is one thing Rome should learn from this. Listen and fix! Rome didn’t want to and voila! You have the Reformation which spread so quickly and maybe that is a concern to look at. Why was it so ripe? Because of one man? Not sure that is the main reason?

Regards

Thanks, I certainly don’t disagree with you here. However, IF, if, Luther was an informed Catholic [he WAS a Priest], then he HAD to know that he was in effect abandoning GOD [the Real Presence], choosing as he did, do develop a set of Faith beliefs to COMPETE with Catholicism.

As Heb 6:1-7 CLEARLY teaches; that put his SOUL at risk:shrug:

And While I would not call that lunacy; it certainty was [is’ wrong and at best, imprudent.

The Reformation spread quickly BECAUSE it was designed [prudently, I might add] to be

[1] EASIER to attain salvation

[2] QUICKER

[3] FAR less demanding

[4] MORE FLEXIBLE [you “CAN” self interpret the bible despite:[Meaning believe what YOU choose believe; NO absoolutes 2: Peter 1: 19-21 AND 2 Peter 3: 14-18

[5] In summary it was designed to be more SALABLE, as it HAD to be to accomplish what was desired: REPLACING Catholicism

THANKS

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

This is not a new argument. And to a Catholic it may sound very profounding and I guess that is okay. You can believe that (Take note, it still takes faith)

You are still assuming many things there. Was that verse really seen that way until Rome invoked it? Just that is a question discussed so many times.

Secondly, claiming Peter is one thing. But history does not show he was the first Pope. History has never even proved he was in Rome in the first place. I do concede, it is possible but we should distinguish very clearly between FACT and ASSUMPTION (Even if possible) here. So no, the history part is very vague on this one. And that doesn’t even address the inconsistencies in the line. Popes being chosen because the Holy Roman Emperor wished it. Popes elections being annulled because major Catholic Empires in Europe actually had a veto and another being chosen because a dove sat on his shoulder? So yea, history doesn’t prove anything here.

And this is also assuming Church = Catholic Church (the structure and hierarchy) while to me the Church of Jesus is very much present.

So no, the mandate isn’t that simple and “just there” because of Mt 16:18. And I haven’t even started on the Orthodox yet? Also an Apostolic Church who never understood the mandate this way?

This is somewhat more intricate than you seem to realise. Unless you take it by faith, which is perfectly fine with me

Regards

OK then

Combine these 4 passages taking CAREFUL note of the SINGULAR TENSE terms the GOD Inspired CATHOLIC Authors choose to use; EACH of these is

DIRECTLY from God and EXCLUSIVELY and Directly to the Apostles and their successors [compare Mt 10: 1-8 to Mt 28:18-20]http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Mt 10: 1-5
Mt 16:18-19
JOHN 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20

Then please tell us how we are not understanding the bibles TEACHINGS

GBY!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

This is not a new argument. And to a Catholic it may sound very profounding and I guess that is okay. You can believe that (Take note, it still takes faith)

You are still assuming many things there. Was that verse really seen that way until Rome invoked it? Just that is a question discussed so many times.

Secondly, claiming Peter is one thing. But history does not show he was the first Pope. History has never even proved he was in Rome in the first place. I do concede, it is possible but we should distinguish very clearly between FACT and ASSUMPTION (Even if possible) here. So no, the history part is very vague on this one. And that doesn’t even address the inconsistencies in the line. Popes being chosen because the Holy Roman Emperor wished it. Popes elections being annulled because major Catholic Empires in Europe actually had a veto and another being chosen because a dove sat on his shoulder? So yea, history doesn’t prove anything here.

And this is also assuming Church = Catholic Church (the structure and hierarchy) while to me the Church of Jesus is very much present.

So no, the mandate isn’t that simple and “just there” because of Mt 16:18. And I haven’t even started on the Orthodox yet? Also an Apostolic Church who never understood the mandate this way?

This is somewhat more intricate than you seem to realise. Unless you take it by faith, which is perfectly fine with me

Regards

Thank you

PLEASE READ carefully and look up the passages I shared in POST #23

My friend, TRUTH can ONLY be singular per defined issue, no matter HOW MANY reject it

GBY

Patrick

 

[MichaelP3]

If Jesus said, Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock and upon this rock I will establish my church, for the purpose of establishing a leaderless and invisible church, I would love to understand how that makes sense. I also want to know why if Peter was not supposed to be the leader, why did Jesus emphasize to him three times, “Feed my sheep”?

As I said, this is not a new argument. The fact is still that very few and still vague writings can be found on this in the first centuries. It’s fine to say but the Bible said this and then ask “but why?”. That is precisely why such an important point should be easy to clarify as an “understanding” in the first centuries. The Catholic point today depends so much on this doctrine that I really understand your zeal to defend it. But to your original reply, it is not “proven by History”.

I see you didn’t even respond to the rest. Maybe you will understand me if you try to look at it backwards. I mentioned numerous contradictions and “weird” things that can put a questions on Peter’s line forward. So even if I concede Mt 18:16 for now, EVERY other (and many more then I named) has to make sense.

And you didn’t even mention the mere existence of the Orthodox? A Church with the same and even acknowledged “authority” in some way who saw this very different for a… 1000 years.

Please jmcrae, there are a lot more intricate parts here.

Or, if Peter was being given charge over some different eternal and everlasting, world reknowned “city set up on a hill” then where is that church today? And how did his name end up at the top of St. Irenaeus’s list of the Popes in Againt the Heresies? (He died in 202 AD -are you going to say that the true Church of Christ was already gone by that time?)

I never know what to say when someone quotes St. Irenaeus’s. If you actually read that very same writing and not just pick a part, you will see he proclaimed Jesus lived “into His 50’s”. Only 2 centuries and “Tradition taught by mouth” and already so far of.

And lastly, you are assuming this Church IS the Catholic Church while it is the catholic Church which has always been very much alive. That’s maybe a dicussion for another thread, but no, no Apostasy or “gates of hell prevailed”. Never have been a Protestant thought which was what I said in the first message so I am quite confused you missed it.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Thanks, I certainly don’t disagree with you here. However, IF, if, Luther was an informed Catholic [he WAS a Priest], then he HAD to know that he was in effect abandoning GOD [the Real Presence], choosing as he did, do develop a set of Faith beliefs to COMPETE with Catholicism.

As Heb 6:1-7 CLEARLY teaches; that put his SOUL at risk:shrug:

And While I would not call that lunacy; it certainty was [is’ wrong and at best, imprudent.

The Reformation spread quickly BECAUSE it was designed [prudently, I might add] to be

[1] EASIER to attain salvation

[2] QUICKER

[3] FAR less demanding

[4] MORE FLEXIBLE [you “CAN” self interpret the bible despite:[Meaning believe what YOU choose believe; NO absoolutes 2: Peter 1: 19-21 AND 2 Peter 3: 14-18

[5] In summary it was designed to be more SALABLE, as it HAD to be to accomplish what was desired: REPLACING Catholicism

THANKS

GBY

Patrick

Hi PJM.

Sorry for maybe not responding to all but one thing there immediately doesn’t make sense. You talk of a design? Who did this, Luther designed the entire Reformation by himself? I think you are giving him too much credit.

Easier to attain Salvation? Was it intended to be difficult?

Regards

 

[jmcrae]

And you didn’t even mention the mere existence of the Orthodox? A Church with the same and even acknowledged “authority” in some way who saw this very different for a… 1000 years.

Please jmcrae, there are a lot more intricate parts.

The Eastern Rites are in full communion with the Church under the Pope’s authority. Those Eastern Orthodox who separated have become little national churches; none of them have or claim to have universal jurisdiction. They separated for political reasons, more that 900 years after Pentecost. For those first 900 years there was only one Church, and it was very obviously Roman Catholic.

The Eastern schism had the same root causes as the Lutheran rebellion - pride, and a lack of willingness to obey lawful authority, mixed up with both real and imaginary grievances.

 

[po18guy]

This is not a new argument.

How on earth is one supposed to take this? A joke? A euphemism? Sarcasm? Speaking to the air? The unified Church knew this implicitly and explicitly. Rome did not “declare” it - Jesus Christ did! Rome simply recognizes what our Lord said. Up to and even after the East-West schism, the Orthodox knew that Peter was Bishop of Rome. They simply do not place him above their local Metropolitan or Patriarch.

1,500 years: clear, precise scripture as well as 15 centuries of actual practice was overturned by a rebellious, deeply disturbed European Catholic Priest. No thanks! We either conform ourselves to the Church, or we end up conforming the Church to ourselves - read that in light of Matthew 9:23.

If you are going to reject a Catholic, reject Luther!

 

[MichaelP3]

The Eastern Rites are in full communion with the Church under the Pope’s authority.

I know that, can even name a few.

Those Eastern Orthodox who separated have become little national churches; none of them have or claim to have universal jurisdiction.

Because they think they can’t or that none of the 5 sees can?

They separated for political reasons, more that 900 years after Pentecost. For those first 900 years there was only one Church, and it was very obviously Roman Catholic.

Very true! This should be your first historical research. And when you get to a conclusion, the question however still remains? Did “the gates of hell prevail” (for mere human political reasons) if that was supposed to be the belief. Not even considering Catholics do accept Orthodox have the real presence.

The Eastern schism had the same root causes as the Lutheran rebellion - pride, and a lack of willingness to obey lawful authority, mixed up with both real and imaginary grievances.

Hmmmm. This last part is packed with assumptions. This assumes the Primacy of Rome was a thing… Not proven! And my math could be quite wrong but 4 is still more then 1. Someone overstepped, YES. And it killed unification for the “Apostolic Churches”. Maybe us humans can learn from doing something rash in such an instance.

This is actually only one of the points I posted. We still have some more for the history to make sense

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

How on earth is one supposed to take this? A joke? A euphemism? Sarcasm? Speaking to the air? The unified Church knew this implicitly and explicitly. Rome did not “declare” it - Jesus Christ did! Rome simply recognizes what our Lord said. Up to and even after the East-West schism, the Orthodox knew that Peter was Bishop of Rome. They simply do not place him above their local Metropolitan or Patriarch.

1,500 years: clear, precise scripture as well as 15 centuries of actual practice was overturned by a rebellious, deeply disturbed European Catholic Priest. No thanks! We either conform ourselves to the Church, or we end up conforming the Church to ourselves - read that in light of Matthew 9:23.

Not sure how to take the start of this but I will assume you are nice

The Unified Church (glad you refer to something that may include all us Christians). But you are assuming again here. Your point has been discussed. It isn’t proved in the first centuries through history at least (Also discussed). But as I said time and again, if you take it by faith, that is perfect! (Honestly no joke. My problem really comes in when it is stated as historical fact, nothing more)

Not sure what you mean all here. Your points were addressed. I am not joking in the least. Just pointing out it is not so “easily” provable through history.

Yet you still not explain why this “deeply disturbed European Catholic Priest” were so successful? But I have put many more points on the table.

Ask something specific and I can see what I can do.

Regards

 

[jmcrae]

I know that, can even name a few.

Because they think they can’t or that none of the 5 sees can?

Probably because they know perfectly well that they have no such authority.

Very true! This should be your first historical research. And when you get to a conclusion, the question however still remains? Did “the gates of hell prevail” (for mere human political reasons) if that was supposed to be the belief. Not even considering Catholics do accept Orthodox have the real presence.

Yes, and it is. If the only Church in existence for the first 900~ years of Christianity was the Roman Catholic Church then it stands to reason that this was the Church established by Jesus Christ, and it is the one that He expects His people to be members of, in good standing, visibly and accountably.

Hmmmm. This last part is packed with assumptions. This assumes the Primacy of Rome was a thing… Not proven!

Yes, proven. See above.

And my math could be quite wrong but 4 is still more then 1. Someone overstepped, YES. And it killed unification for the “Apostolic Churches”. Maybe us humans can learn from doing something rash in such an instance.

This is actually only one of the points I posted. We still have some more for the history to make sense

Regards

Schism is schism. You jumping off the Ark of Salvation because you don’t like the captain doesn’t cause the Ark to cease to exist. It just means you’re not on it.

 

[PJM]

This is a great opportunity for me to correct a grave misconception that you seem to have. Both I and my religion believe the Bible and Latter-day Saints are encouraged to learn history. Therefore, the foundation you are seeking is there.

So YOU DO believe that the RCC is the One TRUE Church and Faith founed, guided and protected by God the Holy Spirit

REALLY?

GOOGLE the list of POPES

God Bless YOU my friend!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

If Jesus said, Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock and upon this rock I will establish my church, for the purpose of establishing a leaderless and invisible church, I would love to understand how that makes sense. I also want to know why if Peter was not supposed to be the leader, why did Jesus emphasize to him three times, “Feed my sheep”?

Or, if Peter was being given charge over some different eternal and everlasting, world reknowned “city set up on a hill” then where is that church today? And how did his name end up at the top of St. Irenaeus’s list of the Popes in Againt the Heresies? (He died in 202 AD -are you going to say that the true Church of Christ was already gone by that time?)

GREAT point!

GBY

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM.

Sorry for maybe not responding to all but one thing there immediately doesn’t make sense. You talk of a design? Who did this, Luther designed the entire Reformation by himself? I think you are giving him too much credit.

Easier to attain Salvation? Was it intended to be difficult?

Regards

NO:blush: Obviously NOT

BUT he is rightly credited as being the primary-initiator of it, and certainly contributed VERY much to the new and creative faith and practices, now so widely embraced.

He has LOTS of help!

GBY

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM.

Sorry for maybe not responding to all but one thing there immediately doesn’t make sense. You talk of a design? Who did this, Luther designed the entire Reformation by himself? I think you are giving him too much credit.

Easier to attain Salvation? Was it intended to be difficult?

Regards

YEP

Mt 7: 13-19
[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14]** How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!** [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

GBY!

Patrick

 

[gazelam]

So YOU DO believe that the RCC is the One TRUE Church and Faith founed, guided and protected by God the Holy Spirit

REALLY?

GOOGLE the list of POPES

God Bless YOU my friend!

Patrick

Being a simple person I may have missed in your first few posts that for this thread you only want to engage with those who espouse your views 100%. If that Is the case I’ll bow out of this thread. God bless you too.

 

[Peter_J]

This is not a new argument. And to a Catholic it may sound very profounding and I guess that is okay. You can believe that (Take note, it still takes faith)

You are still assuming many things there. Was that verse really seen that way until Rome invoked it? Just that is a question discussed so many times.

Secondly, claiming Peter is one thing. But history does not show he was the first Pope. History has never even proved he was in Rome in the first place. I do concede, it is possible but we should distinguish very clearly between FACT and ASSUMPTION (Even if possible) here. So no, the history part is very vague on this one. And that doesn’t even address the inconsistencies in the line. Popes being chosen because the Holy Roman Emperor wished it. Popes elections being annulled because major Catholic Empires in Europe actually had a veto and another being chosen because a dove sat on his shoulder? So yea, history doesn’t prove anything here.

And this is also assuming Church = Catholic Church (the structure and hierarchy) while to me the Church of Jesus is very much present.

So no, the mandate isn’t that simple and “just there” because of Mt 16:18. And I haven’t even started on the Orthodox yet? Also an Apostolic Church who never understood the mandate this way?

This is somewhat more intricate than you seem to realise. Unless you take it by faith, which is perfectly fine with me

Regards

What meaning of the word “mandate” are we using on this thread?

 

[PJM]

MichaelP3;14518177]

As I said, this is not a new argument. The fact is still that very few and still vague writings can be found on this in the first centuries. It’s fine to say but the Bible said this and then ask “but why?”. That is precisely why such an important point should be easy to clarify as an “understanding” in the first centuries. T**he Catholic point today depends so much on this doctrine that I really understand your zeal to defend it. But to your original reply, it is not “proven by History”. **

REALLY:shrug:

Please GOOGLE the list of Popes & or Catholic Church history

I see you didn’t even respond to the rest. Maybe you will understand me if you try to look at it backwards. I mentioned numerous contradictions and “weird” things that can put a questions on Peter’s line forward. So even if I concede Mt 18:16 for now, EVERY other (and many more then I named) has to make sense

SORRY:blush: But I missed that; PLEASE share same with Me again: THANKS, & I will respond to them…

And you didn’t even mention the mere existence of the Orthodox? A Church with the same and even acknowledged “authority” in some way who saw this very -different for a… 1000 years

]
Here’s WHY:

The Orthodox remained FULLY united with Rome until AD & the GREAT Eastern Schism.

Yes there was a less recognized, less notorious smaller schism from BOTH the Orthodox & Rome around the year AD

The G.E.S. while retaining DIRECT apostolic succession, nevertheless lost it claim to “Illicitness” as the bible clearly, directly, exclusively and precisely left the KEYS and the Power & Authority; directly, precisely and exclusively to Peter Eph 2: 19-22

READ and compare Mt 10:5-8 to Mt 28:119-20

Please jmcrae, there are a lot more intricate parts here.

I never know what to say when someone quotes St. Irenaeus’s. If you actually read that very same writing and not just pick a part, you will see he proclaimed Jesus lived “into His 50’s”. Only 2 centuries and “Tradition taught by mouth” and already so far of

The age 50 is NOT historically provable

**[1] newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm

[2] biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

[3] moodycatholic.com/Q10.html

[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus**

And lastly, you are assuming this Church IS the Catholic Church while it is the catholic Church which has always been very much alive. That’s maybe a dicussion for another thread, but no, no Apostasy or “gates of hell prevailed”. Never have been a Protestant thought which was what I said in the first message so I am quite confused you missed it.

Regards

Again my friend GOOGLE the historical LIST of Popes and the History of the RCC, which are directly, precisely & exclusively proven biblically by
:
Mt 10:1-4
Mt 16:18-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20
Eph 2: 19-22
Heb 6: 1-7

GBY

Patrick

 

[TOmNossor]

Can {may} we stop our pursuit of truth and simply relying on what the church closest to my beliefs says both theologically and philosophically?

We can do many things. I suspect your question is, rather, “Is it moral to …” “Is it God approved to …” “Should one …”
I would respond to this question with: When one has the truth, it is not immoral to look to the source of truth and neglect the teachings of those who lack the truth. I simply do not spend much time delving into the truth claims of the Branch Davidians. I doubt you do either.
My experience with you suggests you place very little importance on understanding what I claim to be true precisely because you claim to know the truth and to know that what I believe is in error. I consider you mistaken. I think it possible that there are “stumbling blocks” that lead you in errant ways, but I consider it possible that there are “stumbling blocks” that lead me in errant ways. The “Christ crucified” was a “stumbling block” for the Jews. Most Jews then and many Jews today believe that the Messiah must be the “conquering king” not the “suffering servant.” I consider it possible that there is no “Patrick culpability” in your error however. As best I can tell you find it impossible that there is no “TOm culpability” in my error.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Or is my truth as good as anyone’s truth?

Someone you might respect said, “TRUTH can ONLY be singular per defined issue.”
I agree.
G.K. Chesterton has lamented the end of philosophy in the 20th century. Part of this as I understand it, is the prevalence of postmodern philosophies. They have taken the metaphysical separation of OBSERVER and OBSERVERED and built it into a meme that says one persons “truth” is hopelessly conflicted with their individual observations/experiences such that there are multiple truths. This is wrong thinking IMO.

BTW this is a different questions than the one you asked first.
Charity, TOm