Challenges to Peter's authority

[AlanFromWichita]

mercygate:

Anybody notice that WYAM appears to have posted his question and then disappeared? What’s with that?

If you click on his name on the first post, you get several options. From “find all posts by wyam” I saw that this was the last time he posted. By clicking “view public profile” I saw that yesterday he was online.

If wyam is like me, (s)he might forget where (s)he has posted questions or where to look for them. Perhaps you could send a PM with a link to this thread if you want to know his feedback on what you all have discussed.

Alan

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Strictly speaking the Church doesn’t “base” any teaching on the bible since her teachings predates the bible. For a teaching to be based on the bible the bible would have to predate the teaching, which we know of often the case in Protestantism.

In Christ,
Nancy

sorry, I have to comment on “*the Church doesn’t “base” any teaching on the bible since her teachings predates the bible”. *I believe the hebrews had the OT Scriptures already before there was a “catholic church”. To say that the catholic church’s teachings predate the Bible is simply false. Please quote your source on your above statement. I’ve heard this before (again with no source cited) and am curious about why people believe this. Just because the RCC declared a certain group of Scriptures canonical doesn’t mean that RCC teachings pre-date the “Bible”.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

sorry, I have to comment on “*the Church doesn’t “base” any teaching on the bible since her teachings predates the bible”. *I believe the hebrews had the OT Scriptures already before there was a “catholic church”. To say that the catholic church’s teachings predate the Bible is simply false. Please quote your source on your above statement. I’ve heard this before (again with no source cited) and am curious about why people believe this. Just because the RCC declared a certain group of Scriptures canonical doesn’t mean that RCC teachings pre-date the “Bible”.

I should have more specifically stated that the Church predates the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[GoodME]

There are actually secular “overtones” that have been colored with the recognition of Peter’s Authority to “bind and loose”. How many jokes that we know of talk about someone going to heaven where they are greeted by Peter at the gates.

I believe for the Protestant interpretations that I have heard to make sense, one must assume that the entire population of the earth at the time was the Apostles - just the twelve and no one else. Or maybe that these were the only followers of Christ. We know this not to be the case because of the loaves and fishes story for example, but to make it make sense the way they see it, you have to take this view.

They claim that the power given to the Apostles and more specifically to Peter was given to ALL Christians. It was not. If it was meant for ALL, it would have been given to ALL. As it was, it was given to ONE. The one who was the first to have the revelation from God that Jesus was The Messiah.

You also frequently hear grammatical gymnastics being played over the phrasing and wording of the verses you mention. Things like “on this rock” was not referring to Peter (who had just been named “rock” by Jesus) but to the revelation that Peter had, etc. which of course violates antecedent reference and some very common sense of the translations and the original script. Then, you also have the fact that NO ONE had this interpretation of these Scriptures until the 16th century, where the Renaissance (sp) Man finally had the brains and sophistication to “reason” away 1,500 years of understanding, and proclaim that all previous understandings of this simple text were in error.

I have personally witnessed some very desperate attempts to rationlize any meaning other than the meaning that is there - that Peter is the rock and Peter was given the keys and the power to bind and loose. The source of the desperation is that the truth un-does 480 years of “reformed” (“deformed”) thought regarding Faith and worship.

And now, that desperation is continued to try to lure people from the truth.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

I should have more specifically stated that the Church predates the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nancy

the church predates the New Testament??? this gets weirder and weirder. what is your source on this claim??

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

the church predates the New Testament??? this gets weirder and weirder. what is your source on this claim??

Jumping in ahead of Catholic4aReasn:

The source of this claim is Chapter 2 of The Acts of the Apostles. The descent of the Holy Spirit is the birth of the Church. Had the people in the upper room read the Gospels? No. Did they believe in the Resurrection? Yes. Had they read The Acts of the Apostles? No. That book describes Paul as persecuting the Church. Clearly, his epistles had not been written. Yes, without any shadow of doubt, the Church predates the New Testament.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Jumping in ahead of Catholic4aReasn:

The source of this claim is Chapter 2 of The Acts of the Apostles. The descent of the Holy Spirit is the birth of the Church. Had the people in the upper room read the Gospels? No. Did they believe in the Resurrection? Yes. Had they read The Acts of the Apostles? No. That book describes Paul as persecuting the Church. Clearly, his epistles had not been written. Yes, without any shadow of doubt, the Church predates the New Testament.

oh, geez…I don’t know what I was thinking. I thought she said the Bible, period!! I agree perfectly when the church started as you stated above. It was only later that the NT was written and circulated.
Thank you for pointing out my ridiculous post.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ahimsaman72:

the church predates the New Testament??? this gets weirder and weirder. what is your source on this claim??

oops!!! sorry, Nancy. you are absolutely right. the church predates the NT. now, just who the church is is a different thing altogether!! i haven’t had enough caffeine yet! I apologize.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

oops!!! sorry, Nancy. you are absolutely right. the church predates the NT. now, just who the church is is a different thing altogether!! i haven’t had enough caffeine yet! I apologize.

Bartender! Send a double espresso iced latte to ahimsaman72. Put it on my tab.:tiphat:

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Bartender! Send a double espresso iced latte to ahimsaman72. Put it on my tab.:tiphat:

better make that a double - double espresso!!! thanks!

 

[mayra_hart]

john chrysostom,one of the four great fathers of the east and leader of the church in constantinople in 398, wrote an early commentary on the new testament. he wrote of this passage:“the son granted to peter over all the earth a power which is that of the father and the son himself,and gave to a mere mortal man authority over all that is in heaven,in giviing the keys to the same”( quoted in thomas aquinas) peter and his sucessors are given explicit permission to bind and loose christians in matters of faith and morals. heaven and peter will rule in concert. an its take a exfundamentalist to explain why peter is the authority:clapping:

 

[wyam]

Sorry I haven’t posted any thanks here. Thanks to all who have helped with this thread.
What I have been doing is taking your advice/comments & using them for help in responding to the posts at:

contenderministries.com/Invision/index.php

in the Church History thread I started there.

Any help in those forums would be appreciated, as there has only been one other Catholic there since I started responding to the accusations against the Catholic Church.
(my name there is catholic_christian)

Thanks again,

wyam

 

[mercygate]

wyam:

Sorry I haven’t posted any thanks here. Thanks to all who have helped with this thread.

Whew! Glad to hear from you.

Catholic_Christian? Is that name a red flag? I don’t know the group you are in dialogue with. Are they the kind of people who think Catholics are not Christian?

 

[martino]

Catholic4aReasn:

Isn’t it more about planting seeds than winning debates?

In Christ,
Nancy

How many seeds do you think are planted by losing debates? Of course it’s not all about winning, that wasn’t my point to begin with. But we have to face the fact that both sides in the debate are out to win.

My point was that they guy he was debating was using erroneous logic which should not be treated the same way as actual logic! He said that Jesus didn’t give Peter the keys “to the kingdom” because the text says that he gave him the keys “of the kingdom”, and therefore no keys could have been given! If Jesus did not give him the keys “to the kingdom”; what keys did He give him and what were they for?

Well “to the kingdom” and “of the kingdom” mean the exact same thing anyway. It is obvious from the text that the keys belong to the kingdom. Would anyone claim that in the phrase “the rungs of the ladder”; that the rungs do not actually belong to the ladder but to something else entirely? Of course not, that is nonsense.

This sort of faulty reasoning should be exposed for what it is; and that is what I pointed out in my post. I do not understand the idea that when we are in a debate over religion we should not point out the false statements of the other side because we may accidentally end up winning the debate! And somehow the conclusion is drawn that no seeds could possibly be planted from the winning side of the debate! I am at a loss!

 

[wyam]

mercygate,

Yeah, the contenderministries site lists catholocism as a cult. There are a couple of members who are ex-catholics & have made comments like, ‘i know i won’t be seeing many of my faminly members in heaven because they’re still catholic’.

 

[wyam]

True, martino

I agree that the truth should be told & falsities exposed. After all, that’s what any good chrisitian should do is tell the truth & not let lies abound.