Does God want everyone to be Catholic?

[pocohombre]

Its helpful to consider the purposes of the various new testament books when discussing this.

The four gospels are the stories of Jesus and He is of course the focus of them. However, Peter’s story is also told in parallel in the Gospels. We follow Peter from the point of his conversion right up to his encounter with the Risen Christ in John 21, where the Good Shepherd turns the flock over to Peter, telling him three times to tend his flock.

Acts was written by Luke, a traveling companion of St. Paul. Luke splits Acts roughly in two. The first 15 chapters follow Peter and the establishment of the church, the remainder follows St. Paul and his missionary work with the Gentiles.

The Epistles are all letters from the Apostles to Individuals and Churches they founded addressing issues of the day. The majority are written by St. Paul because he was both a prolific missionary and the church’s first theologian. But he was clearly not the leader of the church.

Revelations was written a few decades after the deaths of Peter and Paul and was a revelation of heaven and encouragement for the persecuted church. It has nothing to do with church leadership because that wasn’t the point of the revelation.

Understand you interpret the feeding of flock as being the head shepherd,over the other eleven. I understand it to mean to be one of twelve shepherds yet still being first amongst equals.Peter is being reinstated as one of the twelve. Remember, they had gone back to fishing fish,where Jesus found them. Remember Peter was the worst of the eleven to that point, having strongly denied Christ .He needed reinstatement as one of the eleven, and I say it is a bit much to say he needed to be reinstated “above” the others.First things first,as the scriptural context suggests. It is like saying Peter, go back to fishing men,the harvest is ready and feed them the gospel ( as all apostles would do and Peter would do first at Pentecost). It is not about heirarchal office except of apostleship.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact if he was the first Pope he would be infallible.

If you do not believe that Peter was capable of being infallible, can you cite what errors he made in these 2 encyclicals he wrote?

Encyclical #1 by Peter

Encyclical #2 by Peter

 

[pocohombre]

A few points here. Lets say for a second that you agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, then you want proof of his primacy and that that role could be passed on. Well, as for the primacy, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose. (Matthew 16: 16-19). There is no higher power than that. And as for passing on a role, that was established in Acts 1, where Peter quotes scripture to show that church offices must be filled when vacated [BIBLEDRB]ACTS 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

The fact that Papal authority is contested by men that want to claim the same power for themselves isn’t a valid argument that Papal authority doesn’t exist. Luther, for instance, installed himself as leader of his own church and following the great schism, the patriarch of Constantinople declared himself first among equals among the Orthodox. Please show where a council or scripture militates against Papal authority to support those points.

Thank you for the kind words. I would continue to appreciate discussion to resolve the differences in understanding. And I’m sorry if I offended you by calling your explanation convoluted.

As far as scripture Jesus says the church will not have leadership as the world does (top down,or democracy) .This is just not in attitude -not lording over but of service but I believe also in office (no president ,emperor king etc).I take it as a theocracy as Israel once was, where the Holy Spirit ,Christ Himself is the "director/Vicar as Revelations suggests( and Tertullian).That a “pope”, in my opinion,developed is similar to how a “king” developed in Israel…As far as councils ,at Nicea ( 300’s) in canon 6 ,“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also.Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges”. There is no hint that there is head bishop over all and supports most historians who say a patriarchal system had developed in Rome ,Constantinople,Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as scripture Jesus says the church will not have leadership as the world does (top down,or democracy) .

Could you please explain what you think this church leadership looks like that Jesus is describing here?

Does this leadership exist anywhere in the world today? In what church?

 

[pocohombre]

A few points here. Lets say for a second that you agree that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, then you want proof of his primacy and that that role could be passed on. Well, as for the primacy, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose. (Matthew 16: 16-19). There is no higher power than that. And as for passing on a role, that was established in Acts 1, where Peter quotes scripture to show that church offices must be filled when vacated [BIBLEDRB]ACTS 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

The fact that Papal authority is contested by men that want to claim the same power for themselves isn’t a valid argument that Papal authority doesn’t exist. Luther, for instance, installed himself as leader of his own church and following the great schism, the patriarch of Constantinople declared himself first among equals among the Orthodox. Please show where a council or scripture militates against Papal authority to support those points.

Thank you for the kind words. I would continue to appreciate discussion to resolve the differences in understanding. And I’m sorry if I offended you by calling your explanation convoluted.

There is a difference in filling a position because of defection such as Judas and one departing in gracious death such as James in Acts 12,who was not replaced. This is about indignation for treachery of Judas, not a template for succession.It is to say let us forget Judas, spite him by filling his spot, he was dispensable and it minimized his misdeed.

 

[pocohombre]

Could you please explain what you think this church leadership looks like that Jesus is describing here?

Does this leadership exist anywhere in the world today? In what church?

It existed in the early church, down to today, as in Orthodox Church for example.

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre, after spending a good deal of effort defending the Protestant position, are you now going to take up the Orthodox position? Do you now accept the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, etc.? As to Peter’s authority at the first council in Acts 15, I quote from the Ignatius Study New Testament commentary: “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the Apostolic Church. He formulates a doctrinal judgement about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side.” The Petrine Office today appears differently than than it did in the New Testament, just as a mighty oak tree looks different from an acorn. One is a development of the other but they are organically the same.

Let each thing be discerned on it’s own merit.The Orthodox show the existence of a church without Petrine CC dogma, still being one holy apostolic and universal /catholic…Thank you for ackowledging the papacy developed or appears “differently” today.

 

[paul_c]

Understand you interpret the feeding of flock as being the head shepherd,over the other eleven. I understand it to mean to be one of twelve shepherds yet still being first amongst equals.

Jesus didn’t give the other apostles the keys to the kingdom and he didn’t tell the others to tend his flock. And what does first among equals really mean. How can you be both first and equal?

Peter is being reinstated as one of the twelve. Remember, they had gone back to fishing fish,where Jesus found them. Remember Peter was the worst of the eleven to that point, having strongly denied Christ

How do you figure that Peter was the worst of the apostles. In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter alone defend Jesus, cutting off the ear of Malchus. And while the other disciples fled, Peter followed Jesus to his trial. Sure he lost his nerve and denied Jesus, but he was still there, unlike the others so its a bit harsh to say he was the worst.

.He needed reinstatement as one of the eleven, and I say it is a bit much to say he needed to be reinstated “above” the others. First things first,as the scriptural context suggests. It is like saying Peter, go back to fishing men,the harvest is ready and feed them the gospel ( as all apostles would do and Peter would do first at Pentecost). It is not about heirarchal office except of apostleship.

Sure, the three fold question, Do you love me, was to balance the three fold denial. But, explain why he asked Peter to tend his sheep and not the others. They were all guilty, except St. John, of abandoning Jesus.

Isn’t it too much to keep denying the leadership of Peter? Try reading Acts 1-15.

 

[paul_c]

There is a difference in filling a position because of defection such as Judas and one departing in gracious death such as James in Acts 12,who was not replaced. This is about indignation for treachery of Judas, not a template for succession.It is to say let us forget Judas, spite him by filling his spot, he was dispensable and it minimized his misdeed.

You are reading into the text things that do not exist. There is no differentiation between succession for death rather than treachery. No matter how some one dies, they still need to be replaced. When your pastor dies, won’t he be replaced? It only makes sense that church offices have to be propagated. They are in every church. Without it, the church would have a lifespan of one generation, which would be ridiculous.

 

[paul_c]

As far as scripture Jesus says the church will not have leadership as the world does (top down,or democracy) .

Have you read [BIBLEDRB]Luke 22: 24-32[/BIBLEDRB]. Notice, Jesus gives the Apostles a lecture about the leader being the servant of all and immediately turns to Peter and tells him to strenghen his brothers.

This is just not in attitude -not lording over but of service but I believe also in office (no president ,emperor king etc).I take it as a theocracy as Israel once was, where the Holy Spirit ,Christ Himself is the "director/Vicar as Revelations suggests( and Tertullian).That a “pope”, in my opinion,developed is similar to how a “king” developed in Israel…As far as councils ,at Nicea ( 300’s) in canon 6 ,“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also.Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges”. There is no hint that there is head bishop over all and supports most historians who say a patriarchal system had developed in Rome ,Constantinople,Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Most historians? Please! You really need to study church history. Canon 6 was giving the see of Alexandria jurisdiction over the surroundign areas. Why the special focus on Alexandria? That’s were the heresy of Arianism started and that was the subject of the council. It doesn’t put it in the same class as Rome. It just uses Rome’s jurisdiction as an example. Note. the patriarch of Alexandria had monarchical responsibility over its area, just as the Pope has jurisdiction over the world. There is no democracy in the church. Truth is not defined by popular vote.

 

[brb3]

There is a difference in filling a position because of defection such as Judas and one departing in gracious death such as James in Acts 12,who was not replaced. This is about indignation for treachery of Judas, not a template for succession.It is to say let us forget Judas, spite him by filling his spot, he was dispensable and it minimized his misdeed.

Pure speculation … on replacing of Judas.
How do know James was not replaced ?
You are really grasping at straws to ‘explain away’ … Petrine and Apostolic Succession.

 

[PRmerger]

It existed in the early church, down to today, as in Orthodox Church for example.

So you believe that the Orthodox Church model for church leadership is that which Christ envisioned?

 

[pocohombre]

Have you read [BIBLEDRB]Luke 22: 24-32[/BIBLEDRB]. Notice, Jesus gives the Apostles a lecture about the leader being the servant of all and immediately turns to Peter and tells him to strenghen his brothers.

Most historians? Please! You really need to study church history. Canon 6 was giving the see of Alexandria jurisdiction over the surroundign areas. Why the special focus on Alexandria? That’s were the heresy of Arianism started and that was the subject of the council. It doesn’t put it in the same class as Rome. It just uses Rome’s jurisdiction as an example. Note. the patriarch of Alexandria had monarchical responsibility over its area, just as the Pope has jurisdiction over the world. There is no democracy in the church. Truth is not defined by popular vote.

The leader of the church does not have authority or lordship over it.When you tell me the pope does not have authority over the church then perhaps we may be closer to the early church.

 

[pocohombre]

Pure speculation … on replacing of Judas.
How do know James was not replaced ?
You are really grasping at straws to ‘explain away’ … Petrine and Apostolic Succession.

Are you sure? So Judas had a successor and not a replacement? How can you not see the difference? Have you read Psalm 69? You think that fits james or other apostles?

 

[pocohombre]

You are reading into the text things that do not exist. There is no differentiation between succession for death rather than treachery. No matter how some one dies, they still need to be replaced. When your pastor dies, won’t he be replaced? It only makes sense that church offices have to be propagated. They are in every church. Without it, the church would have a lifespan of one generation, which would be ridiculous.

So are lots cast for the filling?You are the one who says this shows Papal succession.There is evidence of giftings and appointments of presbyters, but no evidence of direct one person taking over for a “departing” by death apostle. That is churches were founded and leaders nurtured as apostles moved on in missionary journeys.No evidence, at least scriptural that Peter’s keys were given to one specific person. I thought Rome was left with a “council” of presbyters instead of one head bishop.Perhaps that is why Ignatius does not cite any head bishop for the large city in his Roman letter ,as he does name bishops of smaller cities.

 

[pocohombre]

So you believe that the Orthodox Church model for church leadership is that which Christ envisioned?

I think so .I don’t see Petrine sucession not as head presbyters at least.

 

[Jacataqua]

I was just reading this post. The question, “Does God want everyone to be Catholic?” was asked. I don’t think God wants everyone to be Catholic. At least that’s not the evidence I’ve seen in my life. I want to be Catholic more than anything, but I’m not allowed to. If God wanted me to be Catholic I think He would make a way for me to become Catholic, but He doesn’t. It’s been 9 years and God does nothing, so the only conclusion I can come to is that it really doesn’t matter to God at all. I have to be a Lutheran if I want to be a Christian. God must approve of Lutherans and what they believe because he doesn’t help me to be anything but a Lutheran. I think God meets us where we are and thats why there are so many denominations. Everyone is different and relates to God differently, so we have denominations. We also have free will and can worship God any way we want to. God respects our free will and meets us where we are when we are doing the best we are allowed to do. So, no, everyone doesn’t need to be Catholic, that’s absurd.

 

[paul_c]

The leader of the church does not have authority or lordship over it.When you tell me the pope does not have authority over the church then perhaps we may be closer to the early church.

Why would I lie to you? The Pope has the keys to the kingdom of heaver and whatever he bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. How can that mean anything other than authority over the church?

 

[paul_c]

So are lots cast for the filling?You are the one who says this shows Papal succession.There is evidence of giftings and appointments of presbyters, but no evidence of direct one person taking over for a “departing” by death apostle. That is churches were founded and leaders nurtured as apostles moved on in missionary journeys.No evidence, at least scriptural that Peter’s keys were given to one specific person. I thought Rome was left with a “council” of presbyters instead of one head bishop.Perhaps that is why Ignatius does not cite any head bishop for the large city in his Roman letter ,as he does name bishops of smaller cities.

Come on Poco, every bishop and every priest and in your church, every pastor, is replaced when his ministry is over (by death or other circumstance). Otherwise the ministry would not be a ministry, it would be a personal cult that ends at death or departure. Remember, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church. Its just absolute foolishness not to recognize Apostlic succession. What does your denial get you. You need to bend your will to the truth because I can guarantee that the truth will never bend to your will.

 

[paul_c]

I think so .I don’t see Petrine sucession not as head presbyters at least.

Why would there only be a head of the church for 1 generation? The orthodox patriarchs have succession, why not the pope? You want so badly for Catholicism to be false and you need to eliminate the papacy to do that. Well face it, you can’t fight the truth. Embrace it. The truth will set you free.