A major problem.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Namesake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For Catholics, we do not just see ourselves as the early church, but the continuation of Gods ancient covenant with the Jewish people, and the old Mosaic law which has now been fulfilled in the new covenant. Jesus teaches us …

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

We know that the Jews had a structured authority and a process for interpreting the law and these were referred to as ‘the keys of the House of David’.

One example when God threatens to take away authority from the leader of his people :

Isaiah 22:21-23
21 "… I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

In Jesus time that authority was exercised in Jerusalem and even though Jesus disagreed with the leaders of the time, the basis of their authority was not questioned.

Matthew 23:1

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ‘the scribes and the pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do and observe all things whatsover they tell you, but do not follow their example’.

So if Christianity is a continuation from the Old Jewish covenant and Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it, then who today holds the keys of the house of David ? Who sits on the throne of Moses ?

Again Matthew, who quotes the prophets all the way through his Gospel, mainly quoting Isaiah says :

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ” (Matt. 16:15-20).

Now seeing as how Jesus especially renamed Simon - ‘Kephas’ (Rock in Aramaic) (Greek Peter) then travelled all the way to Philippi where there was the large rock worshipped by the pagans on which a Roman temple was built and uttered the above words
then the Catholic position is that the keys of David were passed onto Peter and he sat on the throne of Moses and bound and loose (had authority) on earth and heaven and handed the keys down, as with the Jewish custom, through his office.

If the Pope doesn’t have those keys Jesus gave to Peter (Kephas, the rock) then who does ?

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
 
Namesake said:
2ndGen;3240090:
Protestants trace their roots back to Christ, we just don’t think having a pope is a good idea.
Click to expand...
Again, please show us your time-line. Also, why is a pope such a bad idea? I thought the whole point to this thread was the claim that Catholics are arrogant in the claim that they are the Church founded by Christ, a claim that Protestants could care less about or are offended by the way we present it.
Click to expand...
 
ralphinal said:
Namesake;3240300:
Again, please show us your time-line. Also, why is a pope such a bad idea? I thought the whole point to this thread was the claim that Catholics are arrogant in the claim that they are the Church founded by Christ, a claim that Protestants could care less about or are offended by the way we present it.
Click to expand...
Again…That’s not me.

I am the king of defending Apostolic Succession.

I like when Martin Luther said that in his zeal to get rid of one Pope, he created a hundred popes he had to deal with now!
Click to expand...
 
Protestants can only trace their “roots” back to Martin Luther. Any further back, then you’re into the Catholic Church, and yeah, if you’re “sharing” that form of tracing with us… then I suppose you could say that you can trace your roots back to Christ! But your ROOTS are Catholic! 😛

This is the way I see it.

Suppose you and I have the exact same disease. I go to a doctor that invented the medicinal cure for my disease. You go to a doctor that didn’t like my doctor, and tried to steal the cure but altered it a bit–thus this new version of the medicine, while still beneficial, is NOT the original and perfect version of the medicine that I have.

Now, if I am a good person, I would want EVERYONE with my disease to go to my doctor so that they can have the ORIGINAL medicine and experience true health. Of course I would try to convince others, not out of pride, but because I deeply care about them and I want them to have what I have!

Perhaps a poor analogy, but does it make more sense?
 
Alycin said:
Protestants can only trace their “roots” back to Martin Luther. Any further back, then you’re into the Catholic Church, and yeah, if you’re “sharing” that form of tracing with us… then I suppose you could say that you can trace your roots back to Christ! But your ROOTS are Catholic! 😛

This is the way I see it.

Suppose you and I have the exact same disease. I go to a doctor that invented the medicinal cure for my disease. You go to a doctor that didn’t like my doctor, and tried to steal the cure but altered it a bit–thus this new version of the medicine, while still beneficial, is NOT the original and perfect version of the medicine that I have.

Now, if I am a good person, I would want EVERYONE with my disease to go to my doctor so that they can have the ORIGINAL medicine and experience true health. Of course I would try to convince others, not out of pride, but because I deeply care about them and I want them to have what I have!

Perhaps a poor analogy, but does it make more sense?
Click to expand...
I wonder how many of them even know that Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Monk?

Or that he prayed to Mary?

Or that he was a staunch supporter of her Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity?

Or that he detested division in The Church and condemned it?
 
Alycin said:
Protestants can only trace their “roots” back to Martin Luther. Any further back, then you’re into the Catholic Church, and yeah, if you’re “sharing” that form of tracing with us… then I suppose you could say that you can trace your roots back to Christ! But your ROOTS are Catholic! 😛

This is the way I see it.

Suppose you and I have the exact same disease. I go to a doctor that invented the medicinal cure for my disease. You go to a doctor that didn’t like my doctor, and tried to steal the cure but altered it a bit–thus this new version of the medicine, while still beneficial, is NOT the original and perfect version of the medicine that I have.

Now, if I am a good person, I would want EVERYONE with my disease to go to my doctor so that they can have the ORIGINAL medicine and experience true health. Of course I would try to convince others, not out of pride, but because I deeply care about them and I want them to have what I have!

Perhaps a poor analogy, but does it make more sense?
Click to expand...
That’s actually a very good analogy!
 
Namesake said:
Sometimes, certainly. Of course Catholics can’t believe that because to Catholics dogma is truth.

I guess I studied too much science. Being a scientist means that truth is never found with certainty. Science demands being open to new knowledge even if it contradicts past knowledge. Catholicism demands rigid adherence to the teaching of the church.

I’ve been fascinated by people who are brilliantly intelligent and vastly educated who can practice Catholicism. I’ve come to understand some of that, but for the most part that still remains a mystery to me.
Click to expand...
Would you accept a p value of .0000001?
 
Namesake said:
I was accused of being a fifteen year old and that I probably didn’t have a degree in anything. I was replying in a way that I thought was honest. I hold three college degrees, including a doctorate and I have taught at a major university. Big deal. All I was trying to do was refute the notion that I am a juvenile without significant education. It really doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
I was the one who introduced the “15-year-old” term – against the possiblility that you might be older and well educated. I did not label you as a 15-year-old but was only trying to find out where you were developmentally and intellectually in order to pitch our responses at the appropriate level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top