Do Catholics cherry-pick/read-meaning-into Scripture?

[AmbroseSJ]

Then the argument that some Muslims cherry pick the peaceful verses out of the Koran could be refuted in the same way, right?

Using Hadiths and context, couldn’t they say this or that and it hold up to scrutiny?

There’s a HUGE difference between Muslims and Catholics. Muslims (like Protestants, including Mormons, JWs, Non-denoms etc. etc.) are ALL living by a book. A book that they interpret any number of various ways to reach any number of conclusions/doctrines.

Catholics have a Church that USES that book. But the Church comes first. Even if we were to lose all of the Sacred Scriptures, we would still have the Church.

So it is apples and oranges whenever Catholics are compared to people living according to a book they read however they see fit.

 

[PJM]

I was watching a nondenominational apologetics outreach to Muslims to quench that doubt(Islam), then they pointed out that some Muslims take the verses they like and ignore the violent ones in the Koran.

For some reason, my mind told me that Catholics do this too. Such as the bit about justification, or one mediator, or creation, or any other countless examples of such things.

May you help?

OF course we do

SPACE is limited on CAF AND in order to get POST read we need to at least TRY to be as brief as possible.

That said, doing so in no way diminishes the truth; it not my friend the practice of culling verses that is the problem; NO, the problem is not understanding them in the HS guided light of the RCC teachings..

 

[Tomdstone]

There is much more that points to Peter than just that verse.

Where does Scripture say that the successor of Peter will be in Rome and not in Antioch, where Peter was first?

 

[bmullins]

OF course we do.

Just remember what Cherry Picking means. It means taking the parts you like (the sweet, voluptuous ripe cherries) and throwing away the parts you don’t (the rotten, or underripe ones.) When someone accuses you of cherry picking they aren’t saying you take a piece of scripture and put it up for others to see in order to back up your stance, everyone does that. When someone accuses you of Cherry Picking they are accusing you of taking a piece completely out of context, and twisting it to mean something that the other scriptures would say is impossible for it to mean. “Saved by faith alone” for instance, requires one to ignore James 2:24… so if I put up a verse that says we are saved by faith alone, then I am cherry picking…

 

[bmullins]

Where does Scripture say that the successor of Peter will be in Rome and not in Antioch, where Peter was first?

It doesn’t. That’s why we have to look at history outside the Scriptures and listen to the Church. Scripture doesn’t say where the chair of Peter will be at all, just that there will be a chair. (Keys and all that.) Scripture also doesn’t record that Jesus ever gave a command to write a book, but guess what? They chose to do so anyway.

 

[Tomdstone]

Even if we were to lose all of the Sacred Scriptures, we would still have the Church.

How would you have the Mass without the readings from Scripture?

 

[Upgrade25]

How would you have the Mass without the readings from Scripture?

The early church managed. Not to mention the people that memorize Scripture from the original sources(I hope to), and those who could reconstruct what happened based on what little we know.

 

[Usagi]

The early church managed

They did have the writings, though. At first, the Old Testament, which could be explicated in the light of Christ, and soon “the memoirs of the apostles.” Losing the Scriptures entirely would be a terrible tragedy.

Though, yes, the New Testament is the product of the Church rather than its precursor. With all due respect to the Gideons, the primary purpose of Scripture is to be read and taught and discussed within the content of the Christian community, not to make Christians spring up out of nowhere when it is left lying around by itself.

 

[Usagi]

Where does Scripture say that the successor of Peter will be in Rome and not in Antioch, where Peter was first?

Why stop there instead of going back to Jerusalem, where Peter gave his Pentecost sermon that started the growth of the Church beyond Jesus’ original followers?

It’s true that Scripture doesn’t tell us – but then it only obliquely, in a fairly late book (John’s Gospel) makes reference to Peter’s death. And it’s only with Peter’s death that the question of a successor to his unique office (what became known as the papacy) even arises.

Peter traveled on from Jerusalem and from Antioch alive, taking his authority with him It happened to be in Rome that he went to his reward, and Rome was also the capital of the far-flung Empire in which the faith originated. Through some combination of these two factors, succession to Peter’s leadership seems to have become tied up with succession to the See of Rome. There’s no especial reason why it couldn’t have wound up tied to Jerusalem or Antioch instead, but history and tradition testify to Rome as the place.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Clergy are the only Catholic’s that can accurately interpret the readings in the bible.
:

Excuse me?? I cannot believe this is an accurate statement.

 

[Dorothy]

Where does Scripture say that the successor of Peter will be in Rome and not in Antioch, where Peter was first?

That is not what I had in mind. I was thinking of the scripture where Peter was questioned by our Lord three times, and the final time Jesus said “Feed my sheep”. There is a very good book called “Jesus, Peter and the Keys”, about 360 pages that tells a lot. I understand some of it, and the rest is a bit scholarly and over my head.

This is the book I was referring to:

amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457647622&sr=1-1&keywords=Jesus%2C+Peter%2C+and+the+Keys

 

[Tomdstone]

That is not what I had in mind. I was thinking of the scripture where Peter was questioned by our Lord three times, and the final time Jesus said “Feed my sheep”. There is a very good book called “Jesus, Peter and the Keys”, about 360 pages that tells a lot. I understand some of it, and the rest is a bit scholarly and over my head.

But Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch before Rome and there are those who say that the successor of Peter is the Orthodox bishop in Antioch. I don;t see where Holy Scripture says that the successor of Peter had to be in Rome. That is why some non-Catholics say that Catholics are cherry picking when they point to Matthew 16:18 as proof that the bishop of Rome is the infallible head of the Church. Some will say that the present Orthodox bishop of Antioch should have the honor of the successor of Peter since Peter was there before he was in Rome.

 

[Dorothy]

But Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch before Rome and there are those who say that the successor of Peter is the Orthodox bishop in Antioch. I don;t see where Holy Scripture says that the successor of Peter had to be in Rome. That is why some non-Catholics say that Catholics are cherry picking when they point to Matthew 16:18 as proof that the bishop of Rome is the infallible head of the Church. Some will say that the present Orthodox bishop of Antioch should have the honor of the successor of Peter since Peter was there before he was in Rome.

It is too tough for me to figure out the many details and thoughts and research that goes back and forth.

As a Catholic I believe in “Papa” and it makes sense to me.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[bmullins]

But Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch before Rome and there are those who say that the successor of Peter is the Orthodox bishop in Antioch. I don;t see where Holy Scripture says that the successor of Peter had to be in Rome. That is why some non-Catholics say that Catholics are cherry picking when they point to Matthew 16:18 as proof that the bishop of Rome is the infallible head of the Church. Some will say that the present Orthodox bishop of Antioch should have the honor of the successor of Peter since Peter was there before he was in Rome.

Once again, we don’t take Mathew 16:18 alone to say that Peter is the Pope. We take all of scripture. Including scenes such as when Jesus tells him to feed his sheep 3 times. The old testament introduction of Eliakim, etc. It’s not just one single verse, but the entirety of the vision of who Jesus was and what he said in light of who he was speaking to.

We also have to look at history. Even when people thought the Pope was doing things wrongly in the early church, they never challenged his right to do so. Early church writings show that sometimes people were apposed to “Peter’s” decision, but they never once wrote him and said he had no right to do so. It was implicit in their writing that he indeed had that authority.

That’s why it’s important to note you’ll never convince Catholic’s that it has to be somewhere else because Scripture never says it… we don’t rely on Scripture alone, but on all of our Tradition. We use our rational minds to say “Oh that makes sense.” If you delve into History with an open mind, you’ll end up Catholic too.

 

[Tomdstone]

Once again, we don’t take Mathew 16:18 alone to say that Peter is the Pope. We take all of scripture. Including scenes such as when Jesus tells him to feed his sheep 3 times. The old testament introduction of Eliakim, etc. It’s not just one single verse, but the entirety of the vision of who Jesus was and what he said in light of who he was speaking to.

We also have to look at history. Even when people thought the Pope was doing things wrongly in the early church, they never challenged his right to do so. Early church writings show that sometimes people were apposed to “Peter’s” decision, but they never once wrote him and said he had no right to do so. It was implicit in their writing that he indeed had that authority.

That’s why it’s important to note you’ll never convince Catholic’s that it has to be somewhere else because Scripture never says it… we don’t rely on Scripture alone, but on all of our Tradition. We use our rational minds to say “Oh that makes sense.” If you delve into History with an open mind, you’ll end up Catholic too.

But according to some Orthodox, since the bishop of Antioch is the successor of Peter, it is he who should be feeding the sheep. The Bible does not claim that the successor of Peter will be the bishop of Rome.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

But according to some Orthodox, since the bishop of Antioch is the successor of Peter, it is he who should be feeding the sheep. The Bible does not claim that the successor of Peter will be the bishop of Rome.

But Peter died in Rome.

 

[Memaw]

But Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch before Rome and there are those who say that the successor of Peter is the Orthodox bishop in Antioch. I don;t see where Holy Scripture says that the successor of Peter had to be in Rome. That is why some non-Catholics say that Catholics are cherry picking when they point to Matthew 16:18 as proof that the bishop of Rome is the infallible head of the Church. Some will say that the present Orthodox bishop of Antioch should have the honor of the successor of Peter since Peter was there before he was in Rome.

Where Peter went, there was the Papacy. It went with him not the city or town he was in. There wasn’t even a Bishop of any town till after Peter was made the head of the Church before Jesus accended into Heaven.God Bless, Memaw

 

[BlackBeard54]

Exactly! The Church did not cease to have a Pope when the Popes relocated to Avignon. It is the successor of Peter that is the key (pun intended). If Rome ceased to be, there would still be a successor of Peter, the Pope.

 

[edwest2]

Of course. Because if you agree with the Catholics on our understanding of that verse, then it becomes harder to remain non-Catholic.

Authority of the Pope is the root of almost all schism.

Can you provide a few examples of this?

Best,
Ed

 

[Tomdstone]

Where Peter went, there was the Papacy. It went with him not the city or town he was in. There wasn’t even a Bishop of any town till after Peter was made the head of the Church before Jesus accended into Heaven.God Bless, Memaw

No. Peter appointed a bishop of Antioch. St. Peter established the church at Antioch and was the first bishop there. This see was established before he went to Rome. St. Peter appointed the second bishop of Antioch, Euodius and Ignatius of Antioch was the third bishop of the city. His Holiness John X of Antioch was elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East on December 17, 2012. Eastern Orthodox consider His Holiness Patriarch John X to be a successor of St. Peter, since the church at Antioch was founded before Rome, and the second bishop of Antioch was appointed by St. Peter.
Who was the first bishop of Rome after St. Peter. Most sources say Linus, but the Annuario Pontificio (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2008 ISBN 978-88-209-8021-4), p. 7 says that Clement was pope Clement from 68-76, making him the first bishop of Rome after Peter, but it also mentions the possibility that he was pope from 92-99.