Authority of the Catholic Church

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=larkin31;6619956]I repent repeatedly. I do not follow any man’s gospel.

Here is Jesus Gospel building his Church upon Peter and giving Peter charge over his flock on earth; Do you follow Jesus Gospel teachings or mans false interpretations of Jesus Gospel teachings?

Matthew 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

John 21:15…Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

How do you think the Apostles and the Early Church fathers interpreted these teachings of Jesus Christ?

Peace be with you

 

[larkin31]

How do you think the Apostles and the Early Church fathers interpreted these teachings of Jesus Christ?

Peace be with you

I don’t think that we know just how Peter, say, interpreted these things. We know about Paul, of course, although he did not likely write all that is attributed to him.

I am not sure that I understand the point of your question. I wrote that I deify no texts; I worship no gospel either from God or from man or any combination thereof. And there are other early Church documents, of course. What is your point with this?

 

[josie_L]

Josie, that’s hogwash, and we both know it. The Church of Rome indeed added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

They did not add they only clarified, i.e. the filioque did not contradict nor change (or add to) the deposit of faith, moreover, all the Latin fathers including a few Eastern fathers taught the filioque. Here is an excerpt that might interest you:

The Western Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; the whole Latin patristic tradition does, starting with Tertullian (in his Catholic period), down to Isidore of Seville, the last Father in the West, and three Eastern Fathers: Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria, and Epiphanius). The Greek Fathers taught “from the Father,” and many of them “through the Son”; none of the Greeks taught “from the Father alone” which was the invention (and distortion) of Photius, Saint that he became not withstanding. Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Martin and the Latins from the charge of teaching that there were two causes of the Holy Spirit.

All these assertions, which are true historically, are made in response to the false generalization made by many Orthodox that only Augustine and none of the other Fathers taught the Filioque. There was no consensus of the Greek Fathers against the Filioque.

Tertullian (who gives the West its terminology), Ambrose, who knew Greek and the Cappadocians, and Hilary, the Western Athanasius, all preceded Augustine, and of the ones who followed, such names as Leo the Great, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, taught the doctrine. Moreover, Maximus the Confessor defends Pope Martin’s teaching on the Filioque and answers the very objections of the Greeks, objections which the Orthodox still hold on to. Maximus’s response:

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence… "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. “In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the ‘also from the son’] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this.”

Maximus, himself, believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father ‘dia mesou tou Logou’, (by means of the Logos). The Spirit proceeded, in his view ineffably from the Father and consubstantially through the Son.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm

Now, it seems rather strange to say that the filioque was/is a heresy that was added to the creed and yet was never formally denounced as such by the Church via ecumenical councils.

to be continued . . .

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Here is the List of Catholic Popes in chronological order, from Saint Peter (the 1st Pope) to Pope Benedict XVI.

The Catholic Church‘s, Apostolic Secession is the “un-broken chain”, all the way back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ.

Hi Jimmy B-

Interesting thread that you started hear. I don’t think anyone questions the authority of the Roman Church over Roman Catholic Christians, just the supposed authority over everyone else. Thank you for including the list of the Bishops of Rome, very interesting. So I guess we should really talk about this “unbroken chain.”

When referring to Apostolic Succession, please do not infer that since you have an “unbroken” list of Bishops of Rome that Benedict is indeed a direct apostolic “descendant” of St. Peter. So counter me if I am wrong, but my understanding of Apostolic Succession is this, in a simplistic form: Christ gave all sacramental authority to the Apostles, who then in turn transfered that authority to succeeding bishops, who then in turn transfered that authority to other bishops consecrated by them, and so on and so forth to all the present day bishops of the Roman Church. And this is of high importance for the sacramental integrity and authority of the Church.

If this is correct, then please give Benedict XVI’s “apostolic pedigree” going back to St. Peter or any of the 12 Apostles or even St. Paul. I’ll even make it easy on you; I’ll stipulate the succession all the way back to Bishop Scipione Rebiba in 1555. So you only need to provide the lineage from Rebiba to St. Peter. Oh and one more condition, can you also verify that the correct form of the rite was used in all episcopal ordinations according to the rule set down in Apostolicae Curae?

Thanks

Mike

 

[Nicea325]

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Was filioque defined in a conciliar setting with the entire Church? The Trinity most certainly was.

Quote:
Issue here is doctrine,not the filioque. Two seperate issues. Fact is there was NO OFFICIAL doctrine of the Trinity until 300 years LATER and defined due to the circumstances. And why ?Arianism.Does it mean the East did not accept it because it was not official doctrine? .

How is the filioque NOT doctrine? Wasn’t it defined as such in councils post-schism? Perhaps Ferrara-Florence?

Well apparently you do not comprehend. The Creed was drawn up when? Nicaea 325 A.D.,not 381. What happened to it in 381? REVISED! And why? Heretics,so it is a bogus claim the church has no such authority to do so. Guess what? It did in 381. So adding the filioque was not against orthodoxy.And why? Again,heretics attacking it verbage again.

It is indeed a development of the Middle Ages. To say otherwise would be false. See below.

Quote:
WRONG! To BELIEVE otherwise is false and in deep denial. I am not going to seat here and writes scores and scores of writings from both west and eastern church fathers. Go your local library and check out the church fathers from the first 800 years and tell me if they REJECTED or DENY the existance of the Primacy of Rome.

It was history that helped to lead me to Holy Orthodoxy. Simply, Papal Supremacy was completely absent from the ecclesiology of the undivided Church.

Time to pinch youself and wake up! There was no Orthodox Church apart from the Catholic Church.There was ONLY the Catholic Church,which included ALL regions. Again, time to do your homework and quit feeding off your prejudices.

In seeing how the Church operated before the Schism and afterwards proves precisely that no such powers were granted to the Pope of Rome. He assumed them for himself. The Church of Cyprus was granted Autocephaly by an Ecumenical Council. This meant it was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch and could operate freely, managing its own affairs without the interference from other bishops or Patriarchal Churches. The same was done for Alexandria at an Ecumenical Council as well.

Quote:
Very biased and lack of knowledge of early church history. Again,time to do your homework.

I have indeed. It is why I am Orthodox.

Precisely,because like so many modern Orthodoxs you refuse to accept what the early church wrote. Again, stop making excuses and crack open the early church fathers,if not I will be more than glad to give several cases where EASTERN bishops appealed to Rome.

I don’t even know what the issue with this is. I don’t know of a single Orthodox nor have I heard of one contesting of the burial place of Ss. Peter and Paul.

At least we agree.

Quote:
Issue is many claim he never went to Rome.

Again, I have never heard an Orthodox say such. I’m still puzzled as to why it was brought up.

An Ecumenical Council, of course! Being an Ecumenical Council, it had acceptance and recognition from the entire Church.

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon:

Quote:
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (Ap c. XXXIV; c. III of the 2nd and c. XXXVI of the 6th.) In Christ,

Quote:
I know the Council. You’ve missed the point. There already existed ANOTHER See much older.

No, I’m afraid you are missing the point. Constantinople was given the rank of number 2 in the honor of Patriarchates. Your church will even admit as much. After the schism took place, Constantinople took the role of primus inter pares.

Ah no, I think you forget that besides the point it was given the second rank,which I clearly know from my sources,next to Rome,there already existed an older See. Guess which one?

That is my point,not what happened at Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

 

[Harpazo]

---

Nicea325;6618410:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Was filioque defined in a conciliar setting with the entire Church? The Trinity most certainly was.

Quote:
Issue here is doctrine,not the filioque. Two seperate issues. Fact is there was NO OFFICIAL doctrine of the Trinity until 300 years LATER and defined due to the circumstances. And why ?Arianism.Does it mean the East did not accept it because it was not official doctrine? .

How is the filioque NOT doctrine? Wasn’t it defined as such in councils post-schism? Perhaps Ferrara-Florence?

Well apparently you do not comprehend. The Creed was drawn up when? Nicaea 325 A.D.,not 381. What happened to it in 381? REVISED! And why? Heretics,so it is a bogus claim the church has no such authority to do so. Guess what? It did in 381. So adding the filioque was not against orthodoxy.And why? Again,heretics attacking it verbage again.

It is indeed a development of the Middle Ages. To say otherwise would be false. See below.

Quote:
WRONG! To BELIEVE otherwise is false and in deep denial. I am not going to seat here and writes scores and scores of writings from both west and eastern church fathers. Go your local library and check out the church fathers from the first 800 years and tell me if they REJECTED or DENY the existance of the Primacy of Rome.

It was history that helped to lead me to Holy Orthodoxy. Simply, Papal Supremacy was completely absent from the ecclesiology of the undivided Church.

Time to pinch youself and wake up! There was no Orthodox Church apart from the Catholic Church.There was ONLY the Catholic Church,which included ALL regions. Again, time to do your homework and quit feeding off your prejudices.

In seeing how the Church operated before the Schism and afterwards proves precisely that no such powers were granted to the Pope of Rome. He assumed them for himself. The Church of Cyprus was granted Autocephaly by an Ecumenical Council. This meant it was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch and could operate freely, managing its own affairs without the interference from other bishops or Patriarchal Churches. The same was done for Alexandria at an Ecumenical Council as well.

Quote:
Very biased and lack of knowledge of early church history. Again,time to do your homework.

I have indeed. It is why I am Orthodox.

Precisely,because like so many modern Orthodoxs you refuse to accept what the early church wrote. Again, stop making excuses and crack open the early church fathers,if not I will be more than glad to give several cases where EASTERN bishops appealed to Rome.

I don’t even know what the issue with this is. I don’t know of a single Orthodox nor have I heard of one contesting of the burial place of Ss. Peter and Paul.

At least we agree.

Quote:
Issue is many claim he never went to Rome.

Again, I have never heard an Orthodox say such. I’m still puzzled as to why it was brought up.

An Ecumenical Council, of course! Being an Ecumenical Council, it had acceptance and recognition from the entire Church.

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon:

Quote:
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (Ap c. XXXIV; c. III of the 2nd and c. XXXVI of the 6th.) In Christ,

Quote:
I know the Council. You’ve missed the point. There already existed ANOTHER See much older.

No, I’m afraid you are missing the point. Constantinople was given the rank of number 2 in the honor of Patriarchates. Your church will even admit as much. After the schism took place, Constantinople took the role of primus inter pares.

Ah no, I think you forget that besides the point it was given the second rank,which I clearly know from my sources,next to Rome,there already existed an older See. Guess which one?

That is my point,not what happened at Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

This is clearly not getting anywhere, Nicea325. It’s sort of hard to have any discussion with someone when they keep calling you a liar and unleashing the ad hominems. I am bowing out of this thread.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Jimmy_B]

My point is to recognize that disagreement is a part of every religion, even among the most reverend brethren and sistren.

I disagree -

I think you might have an over simplistic view of Catholicism or maybe you are viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens…Catholicism is not Protestantism… The Catholic Church, for example, is nothing like some of these New Age, “Born Again” or Evangelical denominations we see today. The Catholic Church is a rich Faith with a long rich history, going back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ…2000+ years of Christian history

In Catholicism, we are not allowed to personally interpret the Bible in a way that conflicts with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. We are not allowed to practice our faith in a way that is contrary to the Church’s teachings. All observant Catholics must be in agreement with the Church, those who are not are in error and acting contrary to the Church.

All the Same Message

Catholics have the Catechism (here) which helps in understand the faith. There is a Catholic Encyclopedia (here). The Bible is a Catholic Book. There is Code of Cannon Law (here). Catholics Pope write Papal Encyclical Letters defining the Catholic Faith (here). We have Ecumenical Councils, which have helped define the Faith …We have the writings of Catholic Saints, Theologians and Apologists and famous Catholic converts, like Newman and Chesterton and Doctors of the Church, which help to define the faith. Catholics have the record of the Lives of the Saints, which are different, positive, life examples of truly observant Christians throughout Christian history, great Catholic Saints and Catholic Martyrs (here). We have great Catholic works like St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theological and Shorter Summa and Thomas Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ”, which help us understand and express our faith. There is EWTN (Catholic TV), Catholic Answers and Catholic Online. We have great Apostles of Common Sense like Bishop Fulton Sheen, Cardinal Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Father Patrick Peyton and Father John Corapi who have all help Catholics understand their Christian faith.

I could go on but my point here is that Catholicism is a rich Faith with many Catholic sources , all coming to the same conclusions. All in agreement with the Church all teaching the same massage.

Additionally, Catholics are required to attend 5 years of religious education in order to be Confirmed.

When a Catholic attends a Catholic Mass (church service), and they are held every day of the week, all year (in most parishes), they will experience the same Mass for that particular day that all Catholics do, worldwide…the same readings, the same prayers and the same message in the homily (sermon), although the homily may be worded differently, by different priests, the lessons learned or “moral of the story” from the three readings (Old Testament, New Testament and Gospels), should be the same… All united, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

When a Catholic is Baptized, it is during a Catholic Mass. This holds true for First Communions, Confirmations, Ordinations, Catholic Weddings and Catholic Funerals and so on… They are all performed during a Catholic mass.

If a Catholic attends a Catholic Mass every day (a Daily Communicate), the entire Bible, over the course of the year will be read aloud and discussed by the Priests holding those Masses. If a Catholic attends a Catholic Mass weekly, the entire Bible, over the course of 3 years, will be read aloud and discussed by the Priests holding those Masses.

Continued on next post -

 

[Jimmy_B]

Continued from last post -

There are nearly a million priests worldwide, more than 408,024 them are Diocesan (parish) priests. There is a Catholic Church, or Catholic Diocese in every country in the world, more than 2200 Catholic Dioceses and Archdioceses and 1.147 billion Catholics, experiencing the same Mass and subordinate to the same Church and to the one leader, the Pope.

Statistics, as of 2007 / Source - George Town University Here

 

[larkin31]

I disagree -

I think you might have an over simplistic view of Catholicism or maybe you are viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens…Catholicism is not Protestantism… The Catholic Church, for example, is nothing like some of these New Age, “Born Again” or Evangelical denominations we see today. The Catholic Church is a rich Faith with a long rich history, going back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ…2000+ years of Christian history

In Catholicism, we are not allowed to personally interpret the Bible in a way that conflicts with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. We are not allowed to practice our faith in a way that is contrary to the Church’s teachings. All observant Catholics must be in agreement with the Church, those who are not are in error and acting contrary to the Church.

All the Same Message

Catholics have the Catechism (here) which helps in understand the faith. There is a Catholic Encyclopedia (here). The Bible is a Catholic Book. There is Code of Cannon Law (here). Catholics Pope write Papal Encyclical Letters defining the Catholic Faith (here). We have Ecumenical Councils, which have helped define the Faith …We have the writings of Catholic Saints, Theologians and Apologists and famous Catholic converts, like Newman and Chesterton and Doctors of the Church, which help to define the faith. Catholics have the record of the Lives of the Saints, which are different, positive, life examples of truly observant Christians throughout Christian history, great Catholic Saints and Catholic Martyrs (here). We have great Catholic works like St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theological and Shorter Summa and Thomas Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ”, which help us understand and express our faith. There is EWTN (Catholic TV), Catholic Answers and Catholic Online. We have great Apostles of Common Sense like Bishop Fulton Sheen, Cardinal Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Father Patrick Peyton and Father John Corapi who have all help Catholics understand their Christian faith.

I could go on but my point here is that Catholicism is a rich Faith with many Catholic sources , all coming to the same conclusions. All in agreement with the Church all teaching the same massage.

Additionally, Catholics are required to attend 5 years of religious education in order to be Confirmed.

When a Catholic attends a Catholic Mass (church service), and they are held every day of the week, all year (in most parishes), they will experience the same Mass for that particular day that all Catholics do, worldwide…the same readings, the same prayers and the same message in the homily (sermon), although the homily may be worded differently, by different priests, the lessons learned or “moral of the story” from the three readings (Old Testament, New Testament and Gospels), should be the same… All united, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

When a Catholic is Baptized, it is during a Catholic Mass. This holds true for First Communions, Confirmations, Ordinations, Catholic Weddings and Catholic Funerals and so on… They are all performed during a Catholic mass.

If a Catholic attends a Catholic Mass every day (a Daily Communicate), the entire Bible, over the course of the year will be read aloud and discussed by the Priests holding those Masses. If a Catholic attends a Catholic Mass weekly, the entire Bible, over the course of 3 years, will be read aloud and discussed by the Priests holding those Masses.

Continued on next post -

Did they have all this when Paul travelled the land? Did they have all this in 300 AD? If Catholics agree so much, why so much effort to institutionalize the dogma? That is a LOT of effort to codify…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Did they have all this when Paul travelled the land? Did they have all this in 300 AD? If Catholics agree so much, why so much effort to institutionalize the dogma? That is a LOT of effort to codify…

Hello again larkin31,

Paul’s letters and that fact the we have still have them today demonstrate an organized effort at recourse, instruction, dogma, codification, authority, and an organizational structure, not to mention the first ecumenical council and early Christian dogma.

Paul’s letters actually go to prove my point that even as early as the first century, if one had an opinion, which differed from the Catholic Church, you were corrected by a Catholic leader like Paul.

You picked the wrong example when you picked St. Paul and his letters to support your argument here. If you go back and look at my earlier posts and some of the other Catholic posts here, you will see that there already exist a response to most of your concerns.

Additionally, there are many historical Catholic people and Catholic events that have occurred, which support my arguments here… that took place in the first 300 hundred years of Christianity.

However, based on your last several posts, I don’t think you’re actually reading the Catholic posts here. Or, maybe you have a some sort of stumbling block and don’t want to know the truth.

It’s too late tonight but maybe tomorrow, I will post some examples using Paul’s letters, and early Christian writings to show you what I mean.

Take Care

 

[larkin31]

Hello again larkin31,

Paul’s letters and that fact the we have still have them today demonstrate an organized effort at recourse, instruction, dogma, codification, authority, and an organizational structure, not to mention the first ecumenical council and early Christian dogma.

Paul’s letters actually go to prove my point that even as early as the first century, if one had an opinion, which differed from the Catholic Church, you were corrected by a Catholic leader like Paul.

You picked the wrong example when you picked St. Paul and his letters to support your argument here. If you go back and look at my earlier posts and some of the other Catholic posts here, you will see that there already exist a response to most of your concerns.

Additionally, there are many historical Catholic people and Catholic events that have occurred, which support my arguments here… that took place in the first 300 hundred years of Christianity.

However, based on your last several posts, I don’t think you’re actually reading the Catholic posts here. Or, maybe you have a some sort of stumbling block and don’t want to know the truth.

It’s too late tonight but maybe tomorrow, I will post some examples using Paul’s letters, and early Christian writings to show you what I mean.

Take Care

Sure

Quote any Catholic you would like. Of course they agree with you, because you agree with them.

I read all the posts, except for the really really lengthy ones that are simply cut-n-pastes of dogma. But I enjoy the scriptural ones.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

I agree with gallowglass that it is not important which denomination, and I include Catholicism as another denomination of Christianity, declares that it’s leader is connected back to Peter. First off, Peter, and his converts were brought into the Judaism that Jesus taught (ie, without animal sacrifices or the Temple priesthood, brought to an end with the destruction of the Temple, ad. 70). Peter and his converts kept all things that Jesus had commanded them, and taught men to do so. In Matthew 23, Jesus was plain and simple about this: “When they teach in the synagogues, listen to them. But do not do as they do. For, they say but do not do. (the teachers were mostly hypocrits). But when they sit in Moses’ seat in the synagogues, listen to them and DO as they say.”

Sitting on Moses’ bench in the synagogue, the teachers could do only one thing: read from the Law that God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai. Jesus was a Jew. Peter was a Torah-observant Jew. Jesus had already told them woman at the well: "When you pray, you do not know to whom you pray. But, when we pray, we pray unto salvation. For verily I say unto thee, salvation is of (comes from) the Jews. The word, “Jew” importantly only means, “one who praises God.” It was God the Son with His Father at Mount Sinai who wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, and spoke the Ten Commandment-supporting laws, statutes and judgements, all of which are the everlasting moral Law, to Moses.

Elohim was there (ie. the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Together: echad (united, in unity). Indeed, there is only one true Judaism. It is not the “Christianity” of today. The requirements of the everlasting Covenant are contained in Exodus 20 through 23, and Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23. Only the animal sacrifices and priesthood are now gone.

We use the word, Judaism. But we mean the religion that God gave to Moses to give to His people to teach to the rest of the world. He never changed any of the religious calendar of days and themes. They contain the plan of salvation, spoken of by the author, Jesus, to the woman at the well.

Baruch ata Adonai, Elohim. Schma Y’Israel
Jesus is the only “Authority” for His Church. Peter and the other Apostles were to only teach what Jesus had already taught them. He was the Testator, after Whom there would be none. Amen.

 

[catharina]

I agree with gallowglass that it is not important which denomination, and I include Catholicism as another denomination of Christianity …

That agreement means both you and gg are mistaken.
The Church pre-dates all denominations.
Denominations are those who broke away from the Church.
That’s a point of history.

Jesus is the only “Authority” for His Church. Peter and the other Apostles were to only teach what Jesus had already taught them. He was the Testator, after Whom there would be none. Amen.

No.
It is Jesus Who gave authority to Peter and from then on, to the Peter’s successors.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

catharina:
Catharina. No. You are quoting from a complete misinterpretation of a text in which Jesus tells “Petros,” which means and has always meant, “rolling stone,” that there were two very different “rocks.” Jesus was pointing out to Peter (Petros) that he, as Jesus well knew by that time in His relationship with the ever petulant Peter, was indeed just as his first name implied, a rolling stone, easily manipulated by whatever prevailing ideological wind was blowing, especially if Peter felt some kind of personal threat to himself as a result. They both at the time Jesus was speaking to Peter, stood on a large granite rock.

Jesus was using the obvious difference between the two rocks to point out to Peter that Peter should not attempt to use his own strength as a means of teaching others about Jesus and His love for humanity. Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him several times before a local Jerusalem chicken, or “cock” would crow twice at the time of Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion. Jesus pointed out to Peter, who considered himself as the leader of the disciples, that, just like the granite rock upon which they both stood, Jesus’ message and commandments He had taught the disciples were to be kept just as he had commanded they be kept and observed.

That is all that Jesus was telling Peter. Pride was Peter’s big downfall. Peter thought he could stop the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus. He even tried by cutting off a man’s ear with his sword. While speaking with Peter as they stood on the granite rock, Jesus turned to Peter and said: “get thee behind me, thou Satan.” Instead of stopping the crucifixion, Peter denied that he was one of Jesus’ disciples.

 

[cruisin]

I agree with gallowglass that it is not important which denomination, and I include Catholicism as another denomination of Christianity, declares that it’s leader is connected back to Peter. First off, Peter, and his converts were brought into the Judaism that Jesus taught (ie, without animal sacrifices or the Temple priesthood, brought to an end with the destruction of the Temple, ad. 70). Peter and his converts kept all things that Jesus had commanded them, and taught men to do so. In Matthew 23, Jesus was plain and simple about this: “When they teach in the synagogues, listen to them. But do not do as they do. For, they say but do not do. (the teachers were mostly hypocrits). But when they sit in Moses’ seat in the synagogues, listen to them and DO as they say.”

Sitting on Moses’ bench in the synagogue, the teachers could do only one thing: read from the Law that God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai. Jesus was a Jew. Peter was a Torah-observant Jew. Jesus had already told them woman at the well: "When you pray, you do not know to whom you pray. But, when we pray, we pray unto salvation. For verily I say unto thee, salvation is of (comes from) the Jews. The word, “Jew” importantly only means, “one who praises God.” It was God the Son with His Father at Mount Sinai who wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, and spoke the Ten Commandment-supporting laws, statutes and judgements, all of which are the everlasting moral Law, to Moses.

Elohim was there (ie. the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Together: echad (united, in unity). Indeed, there is only one true Judaism. It is not the “Christianity” of today. The requirements of the everlasting Covenant are contained in Exodus 20 through 23, and Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23. Only the animal sacrifices and priesthood are now gone.

We use the word, Judaism. But we mean the religion that God gave to Moses to give to His people to teach to the rest of the world. He never changed any of the religious calendar of days and themes. They contain the plan of salvation, spoken of by the author, Jesus, to the woman at the well.

Baruch ata Adonai, Elohim. Schma Y’Israel
Jesus is the only “Authority” for His Church. Peter and the other Apostles were to only teach what Jesus had already taught them. He was the Testator, after Whom there would be none. Amen.

So what you are saying is when someone sat on the seat of Moses he could only read the Words of god through Moses, as if Moses was speaking. the one sitting there could not discern, comment on, or gove opnions about the text. just read?

Cruisin

 

[KathleenGee]

Cruisin,

Moses went up and received the 10 commandments and the people fell into worshipping the Golden Calf…

In the Catholic Church, it is a known fact among us that the ‘Shepherd knows his flock and they know him’. There have been times we have not been able to depend on our bishop, but we could with Peter.

 

[larkin31]

I agree with gallowglass that it is not important which denomination, and I include Catholicism as another denomination of Christianity, declares that it’s leader is connected back to Peter. First off, Peter, and his converts were brought into the Judaism that Jesus taught (ie, without animal sacrifices or the Temple priesthood, brought to an end with the destruction of the Temple, ad. 70). Peter and his converts kept all things that Jesus had commanded them, and taught men to do so. In Matthew 23, Jesus was plain and simple about this: “When they teach in the synagogues, listen to them. But do not do as they do. For, they say but do not do. (the teachers were mostly hypocrits). But when they sit in Moses’ seat in the synagogues, listen to them and DO as they say.”

Sitting on Moses’ bench in the synagogue, the teachers could do only one thing: read from the Law that God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai. Jesus was a Jew. Peter was a Torah-observant Jew. Jesus had already told them woman at the well: "When you pray, you do not know to whom you pray. But, when we pray, we pray unto salvation. For verily I say unto thee, salvation is of (comes from) the Jews. The word, “Jew” importantly only means, “one who praises God.” It was God the Son with His Father at Mount Sinai who wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, and spoke the Ten Commandment-supporting laws, statutes and judgements, all of which are the everlasting moral Law, to Moses.

Elohim was there (ie. the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) Together: echad (united, in unity). Indeed, there is only one true Judaism. It is not the “Christianity” of today. The requirements of the everlasting Covenant are contained in Exodus 20 through 23, and Exodus 34 and Leviticus 23. Only the animal sacrifices and priesthood are now gone.

We use the word, Judaism. But we mean the religion that God gave to Moses to give to His people to teach to the rest of the world. He never changed any of the religious calendar of days and themes. They contain the plan of salvation, spoken of by the author, Jesus, to the woman at the well.

Baruch ata Adonai, Elohim. Schma Y’Israel
Jesus is the only “Authority” for His Church. Peter and the other Apostles were to only teach what Jesus had already taught them. He was the Testator, after Whom there would be none. Amen.

very interesting

thanks for sharing

this is new to my understanding

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Jesus is the only “Authority” for His Church. Peter and the other Apostles were to only teach what Jesus had already taught them. He was the Testator, after Whom there would be none. Amen.

Jesus is the ultimate authority, however, He did grant authority to his Apostles’, to their descendants, the Pope, Bishops and priests and to His Church here on earth - To ignore this fact is to ignore Holy Scripture.

Acts 5:12, 16,16
Many signs and wonders were done among the people at the hands of the apostles…Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them. A large number of people from the towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem also gathered, bringing the sick and those disturbed by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.
Mark 3:14,15
He appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) that they might be with him and he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to drive out demons:
Mark 6:7
He summoned the Twelve and began to send them out two by two and gave them
authority over unclean spirits.
Luke 9:1,2
He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal (the sick).
Luke 19:17
He replied, ‘Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.’

Matthew 10:1
Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
1 Corinthians 9;1,2
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2:1-3First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
Romans 13:1
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
John 20:21-24
(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained…”
1 Corinthians 11:23-28
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Continued on next post -

 

[Jimmy_B]

Continued from last post -

Luke 10:18-20
Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky. Behold, I have given you the power ‘to tread upon serpents’ and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice because the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”
Acts 9 32-35, 40-42 (St. Peter heals a paralyzed man, 32-35 and raises a women from the dead , 40-41)
As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda. There he found a man named Aeneas, who had been confined to bed for eight years, for he was paralyzed. Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and make your bed.” He got up at once. And all the inhabitants of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. …Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up. He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many came to believe in the Lord.
Matthew 18:17,18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[Saint_Dismas]

Jesus is the only “Authority” for His Church. Peter and the other Apostles were to only teach what Jesus had already taught them. He was the Testator, after Whom there would be none. Amen.

Chris gives the Holy Spirit to guide

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."John 14:26

and with this verse you could say this teaching Authority was with the Apostles only, but then Christ says this!

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."Matthew 28:20

The Apostles were not going to live until the end of the world and the teaching of the Apostles is not to stop at their death. The only way you would be able to teach all that He has commanded until the consumation of the world is if the authority of the Apostles and there office continued until the consummation of the world.

Lets also note that Christ says TEACH ALL that I have commanded you! Yet John 21:25 says not everything Christ did has been written. Since whats written doesnt have everything then there MUST be another source (The Church with Sacred Tradition) that will give us the fullness of Christs ministry!

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25

This Tradition is found in the Church and we are told to look toward the Church for it!

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

The Apostles say if they are DELAYED you should go to the Church to know how to ACT! Meaning if they ARE NOT PRESENT TO ENFORCE AUTHORITY THEN YOU GO TO THE CHURCH WHICH ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY THEY HOLD! An authority given to them and the Church by Christ!

God Bless