Communion is just a symbol!

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Again, not either or so much. The person in the office totally matters also. History bears this out.

Tell me, would you prefer that Jesus personally groomed and picked our president, and is what we are doing now just as unconditionally infallible because of His promised guidance/hand in the matter ?

Blessings

Greetings, Ben.

History has proven that while there have been bad popes, none of them, I repeat none of them, have taught error.

So while I see your point, I trust more in God that He keeps His promise to the Church just like He kept all His promises to the Jews in the OT.

From the protestant side, I know for a fact that a good Christian like yourself has likely seen numerous occasions where a rotten individual, a seemingly hopeless case, has had a epiphany of sorts, a come to Jesus moment where God straightens that person out and put them on the right path. Happens quite frequently, God uses the weak to confound the wise. So I do not concern myself with Popes or other Bishops who have character flaws. It’s the office instituted by Jesus that matters.

We can trust that the same office Peter held and used to spread the Word, the same office that led Pope Damasus to decree what is inspired, is the same office of today, teaching Truth and feeding the sheep John 21.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

And some have therefore said the perfect Vicar, the Holy Ghost. Why need we a “king” ? (Didn’t another Covenant try this?)

Then why does the CC insist those with out a pope are “unshepherded”, “orphaned”, as if Invisible church" shepherding is a fallacy. Is not Jesus with every congregation of believers ? Does not every congregation having “living” authorities/giftings.

We quibble over the reality of one office of many. We quibble over the brotherhood of believers through faith in Christ and that of one distinct , alledged office.

Blessings

Absolutely the Lord is with the Protestants, imo. We are all on the same team.

However, when you break yourself off from your roots, you no longer have the promise given to Peter, thus error and doctrinal confusion ensues.

This is why i always ask if doctrine matters to non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There are many shepherds tending to their flocks. Even Pope Francis has said for priests to be shepherds living with the smell of the sheep.

thecatholictelegraph.com/pope-francis-priests-should-be-shepherds-living-with-the-smell-of-the-sheep/13439

The bottom line is when it comes to matters of God and faith and belief, no one truly knows anything for sure and can only believe or think they know… with some. Walking by faith, not by sight, a peaceful journey to all. Brightest blessings!

Sure, and I don’t discredit those who help fellow Christians in their walk with God, no matter what denomination. Only one of those shepherds was given a promise and keys, though.

And we see Jesus telling him to feed the sheep in John 21 and if you read the first 8-10 chapters of Acts, Peter takes a lead role there.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Indeed, though that is not the keys.

Jon

Handed keys to Peter, MATT 16:16-19

Singles out Peter as leader, again:

Luke 22:31-32Amplified Bible (AMP)

31 “Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan has demanded permission to sift [all of] you like grain; 32 but I have prayed [especially] for you [Peter], that your faith [and confidence in Me] may not fail; and you, once you have turned back again [to Me], strengthen and support your brothers [in the faith].”

Singles out Peter again in John 21

And in the first 8-10 chapters of ACTS we see Peter taking the lead role.

Primacy of Peter is very clear to me.

Pax

 

[benhur]

Handed keys to Peter, MATT 16:16-19

Singles out Peter as leader, again:

Singles out Peter again in John 21

And in the first 8-10 chapters of ACTS we see Peter taking the lead role.

Primacy of Peter is very clear to me.

Pax

Hi La,

“Now when* the apostles*, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.” Acts 8:14

“And the wall of the city had* twelve foundations*, and on them twelve names of *the twelve apostles *of the Lamb.” Rev.21:14

"And *the apostles *and elders came together for to consider of this matter

*James *answered, saying, Men and brethren, *hearken unto me
*
Then pleased it *the apostles *and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch", Acts 15

Not so clear that Peter was deputy over the others. Leader yes, but clearer to me as “first amongst equals”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Right. Never exclusive of the Holy Spirit. That would be an arbitrary exercise of “what seems right”. Arbitrary means dependent on one’s own will and pleasure.

When a person is in the confidence of the Holy Spirit (“con-fide” ) the exercise of the office will seem right, and it is expressed in confidence and authority through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Pope is unique in his giftedness, just as you and I are uniquely gifted in our unique ways.

Hi clem,

Yes that is the CC teaching. of course I disagree on the office . No deputy office is as theopneustos as the apostles Writ or repeating of the Lord’s message.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Greetings, Ben.

History has proven that while there have been bad popes, none of them, I repeat none of them, have taught error.

So while I see your point, I trust more in God that He keeps His promise to the Church just like He kept all His promises to the Jews in the OT.

From the protestant side, I know for a fact that a good Christian like yourself has likely seen numerous occasions where a rotten individual, a seemingly hopeless case, has had a epiphany of sorts, a come to Jesus moment where God straightens that person out and put them on the right path. Happens quite frequently, God uses the weak to confound the wise. So I do not concern myself with Popes or other Bishops who have character flaws. It’s the office instituted by Jesus that matters.

We can trust that the same office Peter held and used to spread the Word, the same office that led Pope Damasus to decree what is inspired, is the same office of today, teaching Truth and feeding the sheep John 21.

Pax

Hi La,

My post above answers the office.

Peter used his “apostleship” to spread the Word, not so much his “papacy”.

Any elder, bishop can and should utter truths to be followed. Just disagree that the office makes one infallible as theopneustos Writ.

That popes never have taught error is up for discussion. 2000 years is a lot of history to bat a 1000. Others will say when the CC strikes out on an issue , a remnant teammate is there to get the runner home.

For sure the core faith has remained intact, just as it has with 30,000 denominations.

Blessings

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi La,

“Now when* the apostles*, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.” Acts 8:14

“And the wall of the city had* twelve foundations*, and on them twelve names of *the twelve apostles *of the Lamb.” Rev.21:14

"And *the apostles *and elders came together for to consider of this matter

*James *answered, saying, Men and brethren, *hearken unto me
*
Then pleased it *the apostles *and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch", Acts 15

Not so clear that Peter was deputy over the others. Leader yes, but clearer to me as “first amongst equals”.

Blessings

But what Peter proposed the rest obeyed. In Acts, how come Peter is almost always seperate from the Apostles?

 

[benhur]

Absolutely the Lord is with the Protestants, imo. We are all on the same team.

However, when you break yourself off from your roots, you no longer have the promise given to Peter, thus error and doctrinal confusion ensues.

This is why i always ask if doctrine matters to non-Catholic Christians.

Hi La,

Again, the papacy is not the end all of error, or confusion, or a platform for rivaling normative Writ/Apostolic teaching.

Doctrine matters to us all. We all have forefathers who have layed their life down precisely for doctrinal conviction.

Just as you ask not to judge the office because of some "bad’ popes , I would ask you not to judge a non papal system because of its diversity.

For now we unified in our faith in Christ unto new life.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

But what Peter proposed the rest obeyed. In Acts, how come Peter is almost always seperate from the Apostles?

Hi JB,

Peter did not really propose anything save a question why bid them to circumcise. Peter really testified of what he heard from God and saw God do to Cornelius and the Gentiles. James proposed and wrote *their *decree.

It is not all or nothing on the papacy issue. That is why “first amongst equals” is a perfect phrase. First is first and equal is equal.

I mean by some evidences Paul is at least co-pope. He is mentioned more times in the bible than Peter. He is listed as co founder of Roman church along with Peter, by Iraneus
in his list of "bishops’ of that great city.

P’s and O’s love Peter and see him as the apostolic leader. We identify with Him as center/symbol of our apostolic faith . Just do not see as deputy over James and John and Paul, even the rest of the twelve.

Blessings

 

[clem456]

Hi clem,

Yes that is the CC teaching. of course I disagree on the office . No deputy office is as theopneustos as the apostles Writ or repeating of the Lord’s message.

Blessings

At least we agree the apostles have this place and the Lord had a message that was communicated.

What is the difference between what the apostles “writ” and the repeating of the Lord’s message?

(by the way, you make a comparison between the office and the apostles, but the Church speaks as a community.
All are gifted.
All are gifted uniquely. The Pope has a unique gift which is manifested and exercised in community)

 

[JonNC]

Handed keys to Peter, MATT 16:16-19

Singles out Peter as leader, again:

Singles out Peter again in John 21

And in the first 8-10 chapters of ACTS we see Peter taking the lead role.

Primacy of Peter is very clear to me.

Pax

Matt. 16:19 ** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”**

John 20: 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

The keys are given to Peter first, then the rest of the disciples.

MAtthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

And He sends them out as equals.

Does that mean Peter lacked any primacy? Of course not. If issue isn’t primacy, but supremacy.

Jon

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Matt. 16:19 ** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”**

John 20: 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

The keys are given to Peter first, then the rest of the disciples.

MAtthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

And He sends them out as equals.

Does that mean Peter lacked any primacy? Of course not. If issue isn’t primacy, but supremacy.

Jon

The Pope is humble and wouldn’t even refer to himself as “supreme”, even though technically he is to a certain extent…

But, you do need a ref to hash things out. Look at all the disputes in the early church. 200+ books vying for inspiration and to make it into the canon. We know the 27 we have in the NT are inspired because one guy, the Pope, guided by the Spirit and the promise form Jesus, said so in 382 AD. Did the Pope talk to those other guys, the other successors of the apostles? I’m sure he did, but in the end he is the one making the decree.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

“Now when* the apostles*, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.” Acts 8:14

“And the wall of the city had* twelve foundations*, and on them twelve names of *the twelve apostles *of the Lamb.” Rev.21:14

"And *the apostles *and elders came together for to consider of this matter

*James *answered, saying, Men and brethren, *hearken unto me
*
Then pleased it *the apostles *and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch", Acts 15

Not so clear that Peter was deputy over the others. Leader yes, but clearer to me as “first amongst equals”.

Blessings

First among equals is still first

You are “equal” to your wife, yet you are different in that you are head of your household. (wives submit to your husbands) Her opinion is respected and considered, yet it’s your word that is final. Or at least that’s how God intended because He is a God of order not chaos and confusion…

We can call it supremacy, or primacy or whatever, but it is what it is regardless of labels.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Again, the papacy is not the end all of error, or confusion, or a platform for rivaling normative Writ/Apostolic teaching.

Doctrine matters to us all. We all have forefathers who have layed their life down precisely for doctrinal conviction.

Just as you ask not to judge the office because of some "bad’ popes , I would ask you not to judge a non papal system because of its diversity.

For now we unified in our faith in Christ unto new life.

Blessings

Good evening.

So it’s OK to be wrong?

This is where things get a little fuzzy… a lot fuzzy actually… Just how wrong can one be, theoretically? And who determines that and by what authority doe she or she do so?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

But what Peter proposed the rest obeyed. In Acts, how come Peter is almost always seperate from the Apostles?

:ballspin:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi JB,

Peter did not really propose anything save a question why bid them to circumcise. Peter really testified of what he heard from God and saw God do to Cornelius and the Gentiles. James proposed and wrote *their *decree.

It is not all or nothing on the papacy issue. That is why “first amongst equals” is a perfect phrase. First is first and equal is equal.

I mean by some evidences Paul is at least co-pope. He is mentioned more times in the bible than Peter. He is listed as co founder of Roman church along with Peter, by Iraneus
in his list of "bishops’ of that great city.

P’s and O’s love Peter and see him as the apostolic leader. We identify with Him as center/symbol of our apostolic faith . Just do not see as deputy over James and John and Paul, even the rest of the twelve.

Blessings

Well in Luke 22, how come Jesus told Peter, “I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail and once you have recovered, you must strengthen your brothers?” A couple of you have claimed that Peter’s faith was the rock. Explain to me how you can seperate a person’s faith from a person. Does not Scripture teach that unless a person’s faith is firm, he will not be firm?

 

[susanlo]

Well in Luke 22, how come Jesus told Peter, “I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail and once you have recovered, you must strengthen your brothers?” A couple of you have claimed that Peter’s faith was the rock. Explain to me how you can seperate a person’s faith from a person. Does not Scripture teach that unless a person’s faith is firm, he will not be firm?

Luke 22:31 “'Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.’”

Wasn’t this about Jesus’ crucifixion and Peter denying Christ? What do you believe the significance is?

This passage comes right after a passage where the Apostles are quarreling over who would be considered the greatest. It seems that they didn’t understand that Jesus declared Peter to be the rock/foundation of the church.

Many believe that the rock is the confession of faith in Jesus. Some believe the rock is Christ himself. The ‘rock’ isn’t about the one stating the confession, but it is about the content of the confession.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Luke 22:31 “'Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.’”

Wasn’t this about Jesus’ crucifixion and Peter denying Christ? What do you believe the significance is?

This passage comes right after a passage where the Apostles are quarreling over who would be considered the greatest. It seems that they didn’t understand that Jesus declared Peter to be the rock/foundation of the church.

Many believe that the rock is the confession of faith in Jesus. Some believe the rock is Christ himself. The ‘rock’ isn’t about the one stating the confession, but it is about the content of the confession.

24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Well, Jesus clearly talks about the apostles siting on thrones. And I repeat, can you seperate a person’s faith from that person?

 

[Darryl_B]

Luke 22:31 “'Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.’”

Wasn’t this about Jesus’ crucifixion and Peter denying Christ? What do you believe the significance is?

This passage comes right after a passage where the Apostles are quarreling over who would be considered the greatest. It seems that they didn’t understand that Jesus declared Peter to be the rock/foundation of the church.

Many believe that the rock is the confession of faith in Jesus. Some believe the rock is Christ himself. The ‘rock’ isn’t about the one stating the confession, but it is about the content of the confession.

The ‘rock’ is the combination of Peter with his confession. A confession does not exist by itself, it only exists from a person. A person without a confession is devoid of faith. Faith cannot exist without the faithful. The originator is still the person, the primary, the subject, the vehicle is the person not the confession by itself.