Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[rcwitness]

Hi rc’

I think the OT scriptures are also prophetic of what is to come in the last days , and the new kingdom on Earth. It shows the covenant also to be a bit conditional.

The new is better, and Our hearts have His ways written on them like never before . He graces us unconditionally in that regard . That does not however say wolves will not creep in, but that His sheep will heed His voice, and the goats will not. I do not see it as a promise of no goats. So now we are stuck with discernment between the goats/sheep. And the sheep must discern His voice on many matters also. Having all the sheep discern exactly alike on all points is beyond the scope of a visible church/office but keeps the Paraclete quite busy.

Blessings

Wolves will be among us, that is for sure! And I have even acted as the wolf at times. The sheep are fed by One. And Peter was commissioned to feed His sheep. And Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. That sounds like infallibility to me. That sounds like something that will help us to be like the first converts… We can devote to the Teachings of the apostles, because we have their successors to confirm. Now I don’t think this means we can relax and forget about the Paraclete and just let the Magisterium discern for us! God forbid! There are trials everyday that demand our reliance on Him. And even in the matters the Church has confirmed, we still need the Spirit to illuminate our understanding. It is not healthy to always trust blindly. This would lead to failure, eventually.

 

[blanchardman]

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Phanuel, saying: I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved.
Haydock’s Commentary
Ver. 30. Phanuel. This word signifies the face of God, or the sight, or seeing of God. (Challoner) — Hebrew reads here Peni-el, though it has Phanuel in the next verse. Jacob thus returns thanks to God for the preservation of his life, after having seen God or his angel in a corporeal form, and not in a dream only. (Calmet)
Exodus 33: 11
[11] And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend. And when he returned into the camp, his servant Josue the son of Nun, a young man, departed not from the tabernacle.

Haydock’s Commentary
Verse 11
Face to face. That is, in a most familiar manner. Though, as we learn from this very chapter, Moses could not see the face of the Lord. (Challoner) — The angel assumed a human form, (Menochius) which Moses knew could not fully display the majesty of God; and hence he begs to see his face, or his glory, (ver. 13, 18,) which God declares is impossible for any mortal to do, ver. 20. (Haydock) — He addresses him, however, with unusual condescension, and speaks to him without any ambiguity, “without any medium,” as the Arabic expresses it. Other prophets were instructed by visions, and were filled with terror, Daniel x. 8. — Young man, though 50 years old, and the general who defeated the Amalecites, chap. xvii. 13. Puer means a servant also, in which capacity Josue waited on Moses, and was alone allowed to be present with him in the tabernacle. He did not sleep there, (Calmet) but guarded it from all profanation. Some say he was still called young, because he was unmarried; in which sense the Chaldean styles him hullema, which corresponds with the Hebrew halma, a virgin. (Serarius) (Tirinus)

** Numbers 14:14**
And the inhabitants of this land, (who have heard that thou, O Lord, art among this people, and art seen face to face, and thy cloud protecteth them, and thou goest before them in a pillar of a cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night

** Deuteronomy 5:4**
He spoke to us face to face in the mount out of the midst of fire

Judges 6:22
And Gedeon seeing that it was the angel of the Lord, said: Alas, my Lord God: for I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.

God Bless you

PJM

I can agree that man can not look upon the face of God (YHVH,elohim).He did see Him in a personal way. He saw the second person of the trinity,who once said that if you have seen me you have seen the father. In this way he did see the face of elohim. Thus the name.

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM,

He is not perplexed, nor does He have to justify Himself in any situation.

I beg to differ. I do not think anyone of us think we have taken on a relatively inferior set of beliefs.Goes both ways. "His story’ is open to interpretation, preferably His.

Pray, even if it reveals disproving facts ? May He grant us His desires, otherwise what we seek we shall find (our own justification).

Blessings,

"If by “inferior” you mean to imply that ALL Faith believes are equal either in GOD’S view or the reality of TRUTH; your wrong.

TRULY SORRY, but your wrong

Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I can agree that man can not look upon the face of God (YHVH,elohim).He did see Him in a personal way. He saw the second person of the trinity,who once said that if you have seen me you have seen the father. In this way he did see the face of elohim. Thus the name.

Beautiful and we AGREE!

Thank you,

Patrick

 

[benhur]

"If by “inferior” you mean to imply that ALL Faith believes are equal either in GOD’S view or the reality of TRUTH; your wrong.

TRULY SORRY, but your wrong

Blessings,

Patrick

Hi PJM,

No, I was just replying to you saying the CC does not say she is Better than O’s or P’s. I disagreed but pretty much meant we all feel our particular set of beliefs is the best available, or we do not think them inferior to others. Of course I did *not *mean everybody’s is better or equal.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The sheep are fed by One

OK. I take that to be the Lord,and not one man or one office. i mean all the apostles fed. All teachers/prebyters feed. The apostle Paul certainly fed…

And Peter was commissioned to feed His sheep. And Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. That sounds like infallibility to me.

Well, I think the context is that Peter would fail, and did more than any other disciple when he denied vehemently knowing Christ. This is what Christ prayed about. Part of Peter’s healing would be focusing in on the mission after Christ left. He was a leader *amongst *the disciples. He would be needed.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I don’t want to be accusational, yet I believe that mature members of churches which are in a separated communion do promote the division which they are in.

Hirc’

OK, kind of a truism. I mean if a set of beliefs has errors and you support that church, I suppose you can be viewed by others as promoting the error that has caused division.

Yes, in the Day of the Lord’s judgement, we will be separated by Him who sees everything about a person. We do not.

yet that is the only real lasting division there is.Therefore the only real lasting unity also(being a sheep in the Book of Life).

Though some things are visible, for example, what we profess and the Sacraments we uphold. Also, our ordained leaders are very visible.

Yes, visible and invisible, like the early Israelites , before they made themselves a king.But yes ,God always has His spokesman, and yes the Holy Spirit also speaks like never before.

But we will never know, or worry ourselves with trying to know who is in the Book of Life.

Not worry but understand the dynamics. We are to love the brethren(besides even everyone else),therefore there must be guidelines as to who the brethren are, who are written in the book of life now.

On the other hand, we care (or should!) if any are not in His grace.

yes, so there are "guidelines’/ signs , and love believeth all things, covers a multitude of sins.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

OK. I take that to be the Lord,and not one man or one office. i mean all the apostles fed. All teachers/prebyters feed. The apostle Paul certainly fed…

Yes, they all fed. Yet Peter had a special commission. He was told to feed even the others! Jesus asks, “Do you love me more than these?” And then, “Feed/tend my sheep.” Even the Apostles are His sheep. All are His sheep.

Well, I think the context is that Peter would fail, and did more than any other disciple when he denied vehemently knowing Christ. This is what Christ prayed about.

Well, Christ prayed his faith would strengthen the others. And at this point, Jesus was not gone. Peter was not afforded the gift while Jesus was with them. Especially not during His passion!

Part of Peter’s healing would be focusing in on the mission after Christ left. He was a leader *amongst *the disciples. He would be needed.

Yes, and apparently protestants think his office was no longer needed after… I don’t know when… maybe the Jerusalem Council?

 

[rcwitness]

yet that is the only real lasting division there is.Therefore the only real lasting unity also (being a sheep in the Book of Life).

Yep. But I don’t see the many fractions on moral issues and Biblical interpretations as being a healthy thing either. Neither is it what the first converts were like. But like I’ve said, I have to worry about my own conduct and devotion. I don’t want to argue endlessly. I do like to strengthen my knowledge here, though. But it’s a curse if I don’t apply it well in my life.

Yes, visible and invisible, like the early Israelites , before they made themselves a King.

Do you know where this is, in Scripture? I’ve wanted to look at that.

 

[benhur]

Yep. But I don’t see the many fractions on moral issues and Biblical interpretations as being a healthy thing either. Neither is it what the first converts were like. But like I’ve said, I have to worry about my own conduct and devotion. I don’t want to argue endlessly. I do like to strengthen my knowledge here, though. But it’s a curse if I don’t apply it well in my life.

Do you know where this is, in Scripture? I’ve wanted to look at that.

"All this took about 450 years. “After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet.
Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years.” Acts 13:20,21

"They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD.And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.” 1Sam8

 

[rcwitness]

"All this took about 450 years. “After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet.
Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years.” Acts 13:20,21

"They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD.And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.” 1Sam8

Thanks ben,

This is an interesting event in the people of Israel. And it does seem to look like the Catholic faith attempts the same type of thing with the Chair of Peter. But there are also differences which don’t really make the two so similar.

One, is that Jesus Himself established Peter, not as a king, but as a member of His church who would possess “keys” to bind and loose “whatever”. This appointing is very related to what happened in Isaiah 22:

Thus says the LordGod*of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?… you shame of your master’s house.**I will thrust you from your office…In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah,**and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.**In that day, says theLordof hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for theLordhas spoken.”

Jesus specifically uses these terms with Peter:

*And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.And I tell you, you are Peter,and on this rockI will build my church, and the powers of deathshall not prevail against it.*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.”*Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

This is an office for the King, not a king. He is an Apostle, a steward, a shepherd, and a judge, but not a king. And the other apostles are also these things, though Peter had distinction among them.

Luke 12

Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”42And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?43Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.44Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.

John 21

Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Feed my lambs.”“Tend my sheep.”“Feed my sheep."

 

[rcwitness]

… continued:

Before Jesus commissions Peter to strengthen the 11, He distinguishes the difference in them all and a King. And He does this principally by convicting them that He Himself, who is the King, has served all.

Luke 22

A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.25And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.26But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.27For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28*“You are those who have continued with me in my trials;29as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you30that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

There is two kinds of greatness. One is in position of offices, while the other is in how faithfully and wisely we serve the Master.

I think there have been many Bishops, and even the Bishop of Rome, who have not served but enjoyed being served. This means that they did not give the food at the proper time. Yet their ordination are valid.

 

[benhur]

Thanks ben,

This is an interesting event in the people of Israel. And it does seem to look like the Catholic faith attempts the same type of thing with the Chair of Peter. But there are also differences which don’t really make the two so similar.

Agreed. Disagree after Peter, that is succession seems to be the desired “king”.

One, is that Jesus Himself established Peter, not as a king, but as a member of His church who would possess “keys” to bind and loose “whatever”. This appointing is very related to what happened in Isaiah 22:

Agree. Just disagree that the other apostles were not included, or that apostles could appoint an ‘Eliakim’. Only the King could do that. The previous key holder, Shebna, could not pass on the key himself. Only king Hezekiah could. Just like when the eleven apostles tried to replace Judas. We never hear of that appointee again. The Lord did choose another that we hear of quite a bit, Paul.

What the apostles could appoint was successors as far as presbyters/bishops.

So, indeed our foundation is Peter, but equally with the other apostles.

Peter did have the keys, but the other apostles used them also, even binding and loosing.

Lastly Isaiah foreshadows Christ, the Nail, the sure Nail, in which all His descendants are dependent.The Nail, that was “cut down”.

Jesus holds all the keys also, opens and shuts doors.The Nail, that was “cut down”.

But agree, Matthew correlates to Isaiah beautifully.

westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/ekklesia/keys-to-the-kingdom.html

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Agreed. Disagree after Peter, that is succession seems to be the desired “king”.

I would agree that some, or even many, do treat him more like a king. But I think the passage where Jesus instructs the Apostles how they are to serve and be the least, is what should be understood. I understand it’s a double dynamic going on. An office which is honored above others, yet an office which is established to serve and strengthen. It’s actually not such a “nice” privilege to be a bishop, let alone the bishop of Rome. It’s such a high responsibility! “To whomever much is given, much will be required.”

Agree. Just disagree that the other apostles were not included, or that apostles could appoint an ‘Eliakim’. Only the King could do that. The previous key holder, Shebna, could not pass on the key himself. Only king Hezekiah could. Just like when the eleven apostles tried to replace Judas. We never hear of that appointee again. The Lord did choose another that we hear of quite a bit, Paul.

What the apostles could appoint was successors as far as presbyters/bishops.

So, indeed our foundation is Peter, but equally with the other apostles.

Peter did have the keys, but the other apostles used them also, even binding and loosing.

Lastly Isaiah foreshadows Christ, the Nail, the sure Nail, in which all His descendants are dependent.The Nail, that was “cut down”.

Jesus holds all the keys also, opens and shuts doors.The Nail, that was “cut down”.

But agree, Matthew correlates to Isaiah beautifully.

westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/ekklesia/keys-to-the-kingdom.html

Ok ben, this is why I appreciate your fellowship here at CAF! You have some good concerns, which take serious considerations and accurate answers!

I don’t want to reply to this too quickly, because it does deserve attention and knowledge. I have my initial thoughts, but will look into it better before replying too much.

I did read the article you linked. It is pretty good. I appreciate that it doesn’t deny that Jesus was building the kingdom on Peter, and not merely his confession. Not that his confession wasn’t directly related to Christ’s action, but that He was establishing something “on” Peter.

As for the nuances regarding Isaiah 22, my only initial reaction is that we would agree it is only Jesus who can appoint an Apostle. Successors are merely Bishops. These bishops are distinct from Apostles, yet to each generation they have relative authority. And the Bishop of Rome, having chief authority. He doesn’t reveal anything “new” as an Apostle did, but Confirms what already pertains to the Apostolic faith.

I hope to look into this more, since I am the one who brought up Isaiah 22. And maybe some other members have some knowledge too.

Also, a question about your post… Were you implying that Matthias was not an actual Apostle after his appointing by the eleven?

 

[benhur]

I would agree that some, or even many, do treat him more like a king. But I think the passage where Jesus instructs the Apostles how they are to serve and be the least, is what should be understood. I understand it’s a double dynamic going on. An office which is honored above others, yet an office which is established to serve and strengthen. It’s actually not such a “nice” privilege to be a bishop, let alone the bishop of Rome. It’s such a high responsibility! “To whomever much is given, much will be required.”

Ok ben, this is why I appreciate your fellowship here at CAF! You have some good concerns, which take serious considerations and accurate answers!

I don’t want to reply to this too quickly, because it does deserve attention and knowledge. I have my initial thoughts, but will look into it better before replying too much.

I did read the article you linked. It is pretty good. I appreciate that it doesn’t deny that Jesus was building the kingdom on Peter, and not merely his confession. Not that his confession wasn’t directly related to Christ’s action, but that He was establishing something “on” Peter.

As for the nuances regarding Isaiah 22, my only initial reaction is that we would agree it is only Jesus who can appoint an Apostle. Successors are merely Bishops. These bishops are distinct from Apostles, yet to each generation they have relative authority. And the Bishop of Rome, having chief authority. He doesn’t reveal anything “new” as an Apostle did, but Confirms what already pertains to the Apostolic faith.

I hope to look into this more, since I am the one who brought up Isaiah 22. And maybe some other members have some knowledge too.

Also, a question about your post… Were you implying that Matthias was not an actual Apostle after his appointing by the eleven?

As to Mathias , not sure. Not sure if it was spirit led or not, what Peter and the apostles did. Was it indeed what God really wanted, or did He just allow the apostles initiative, knowing God would really pick Paul later? Hard to think Paul is not one of the twelve foundations mentioned in Revelations, unless of course it is a figurative number. It is hard for me also to think the apostles acted impulsively (but Peter was very impulsive), even wrongly here. I am not dogmatic about it.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

As to Mathias , not sure. Not sure if it was spirit led or not, what Peter and the apostles did. Was it indeed what God really wanted, or did He just allow the apostles initiative, knowing God would really pick Paul later? Hard to think Paul is not one of the twelve foundations mentioned in Revelations, unless of course it is a figurative number. It is hard for me also to think the apostles acted impulsively (but Peter was very impulsive), even wrongly here. I am not dogmatic about it.

Blessings

Ok… I can appreciate acknowledging uncertainty about this.

I lean towards believing he was an Apostle already, yet not one of the 12 for some reason. Then, Peter and the 11 were compelled by the Spirit to graft him into the level of the"twelve".

I don’t know, either, if Revelation’s (and Jesus’ own) comments about the 12 is literal. I think Paul, like he said, worked harder than the others. But that never earns anyone the position God gives them. He did not follow Christ faithfully during his mission, then persecuted the Church. It took a very special grace for him to turn. But he did, and then… whoa!

 

[Abu]

Christ gave us His Church, with Her Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium, and She guaranteed the Sacred Scripture which only She can interpret.

How futile it is to try to dispute the evidence of reality that He has given us and to spend countless hours speculating.

 

[rcwitness]

Christ gave us His Church, with Her Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium, and She guaranteed the Sacred Scripturewhich only She can interpret.

I don’t believe the Church Teaches that only the Magisterium can interpret Scripture.

I believe only her confirmed interpretation has binding authority on the whole Church.

 

[Abu]

rcwitness #588
I believe only her confirmed interpretation has binding authority on the whole Church.

That is what my statement confirmed: “She guaranteed His Sacred Scripture, which only She can interpret.” [Post #587]

 

[rcwitness]

That is what my statement confirmed: “She guaranteed His Sacred Scripture, which only She can interpret.” [Post #587]

Do you believe that “only” the magisterium is able to interpret Scripture?

I think there are many Godly men and women who read, believe and are given illumination to the meaning of things in Scripture.

The distinction should be made that the Magisterium’s interpretation is binding on the Church. So while individuals, or even groups of Christian are able to interpret wisely, they do not have authority to contradict what the Church’s Magisterium has declared under lawful terms.

This is important, I believe, because we don’t deny that there are non-Catholic Christians who have seen many Truths from the Holy Scriptures! And amen to that!

But maybe you are using “interpret” in the sense of “Teaching with authority” and not merely “discerning the meaning”. If that is so, then I agree. But it happens… and always will. We can only study with others, and share what our faith has to offer. The rest is in God’s hands.