I’m sure there is much more to this story than what you are presenting here. What is keeping you from being Catholic? What is forcing you to be Lutheran? We do have free will and can do as we please, but not every choice we make is acceptable to God. That is true of worship as well.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.
Firstly, then why aren’t you Orthodox?I think so .I don’t see Petrine sucession not as head presbyters at least.
Wha’s Ps. 69 say ?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?
What gets lost in this "office’ talk minutia is that the real context was and is getting the gospel out.The Cross,the Gospel does loose and bind,for eternity.Remitting and not remitting sins is the mission according to one of the gospels.This is something all the apsotles did, thru the gospel,the key of all keys. I do not take the keys so literally as to be with one man for it is problematic then for Revelations says Christ still has the keys. When one sees the keys as authority of the gospel preached ,from/thru Christ, from/ thru the apostles, from/ thru us it is not problematic and the gates of hell have not/wil not prevail against this gospel.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?
Ps 69 and 109 is what peter was referring to. No one is denying the office of the original 12 apostles, just it’s permanancy.What is being questioned is the succession of the original 12 apostles .You do agree that there is only one original twleve, and only one replacement by Peter’s method and only one St.Paul? You cite Peter’s Psalm reference and I understand your interpretation. I think it is incorrect. Psalms speaks more of replacement not succession, though it be a fine line,but to lump Judas with the rest is unwarranted, not to mention the method of selection used by Peter, or that we never hear of that 12 th apostle again. I am not sure what Peter did was necessary nor even correct. Was this more of Peter’s brashness, like cutting off the servants ear,you know, good intention but wrong method?Wha’s Ps. 69 say ?
Psalm 109:8 … deals with Judas —calls his position an OFFICE.
Peter also speaks of it in Acts 1:20 … quoting Ps. 109:8 … it being an ‘office’, not just a one time position while Christ here on earth, but a permanent ‘office’.
So … same applies to all the 12, Peter being the CHIEF Apostle, … an office the Popes have always seen & held ---- by biblical right.
Again Poco …
This is so clearly defined in scripture, you have no excuse to ignore it …or to try to explain it away by cunning, or otherwise.
.
Actually, the ability to ‘bind & loose’ was given to all the apostles [bishops]… not just Peter.What gets lost in this "office’ talk minutia is that the real context was and is getting the gospel out.The Cross,the Gospel does loose and bind,for eternity.Remitting and not remitting sins is the mission according to one of the gospels.This is something all the apsotles did, thru the gospel,the key of all keys. I do not take the keys so literally as to be with one man for it is problematic then for Revelations says Christ still has the keys. When one sees the keys as authority of the gospel preached ,from/thru Christ, from/ thru the apostles, from/ thru us it is not problematic and the gates of hell have not/wil not prevail against this gospel.
pablope;10735605:
Poco…here is my question to you:The first council in Jerusalem can be seen easily to support the Orthodox/Eatsterniew of Peter.Peter testified, he did not "make " a decision, nor did he even "chair ’ or “president” the council.
Who made the doctrinal decision at the Council in Acts 15?
What was Peter’s testimony about?
Secondly, if you believe has you say…why did Paul not call James, let him come to Antioch…and let James, if he is the true leader…or president who had the decision, come to Antioch to ease the tension between the Jews and Gentiles?
Why did it have to take Peter? Why would Paul go to the extent of calling out Peter;s moral failure?
Firstly, then why aren’t you Orthodox?
So lets discuss context. In Matthew 16, the passage begins with Jesus asking the Apostles to identify who he was. Some said Elijah, some said the prophets, but it was Simon who was inspired by God to declare that Jesus was the messiah, the son of the living God. And because God picked Simon, , Jesus renamed him the Rock (Cephas or Peter), on which He will build His church.What gets lost in this "office’ talk minutia is that the real context was and is getting the gospel out.The Cross,the Gospel does loose and bind,for eternity.Remitting and not remitting sins is the mission according to one of the gospels.This is something all the apsotles did, thru the gospel,the key of all keys. I do not take the keys so literally as to be with one man for it is problematic then for Revelations says Christ still has the keys. When one sees the keys as authority of the gospel preached ,from/thru Christ, from/ thru the apostles, from/ thru us it is not problematic and the gates of hell have not/wil not prevail against this gospel.
Augustine believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacramental nature of the mass. I’m going to assume that you believe this to be a false Christian teaching. So the question now is, did Augustine make this up based on his own interpretation of John 6 or did he receive this false teaching from other Christians before him?My friend I feel quite comfortable in reading much of his Confessions and feel a kinship with his experience in Christ.The feeling isn’t perfect and perhaps it shouldn’t be,that is we follow Christ,and I would not demand that we see eye to eye on all 238 thoughts he puts forth. Much is the same and much is different with both the CC and P churches of today with that early church .But yes, he laid a foundation for much of what is Catholicism today, to some regret to Protestants. It is also quite clear some things have evolved in CC that he did not proport.
How does one know if a pastor is truly born again, or just one of those faux believers, poco?Cause not all ortodox pastors are inspired,even born again
I would think that you would seek the Church that Christ established, not simply stay in that which you were birthed.,and that is not where I was birthed
Yes, this seems to be a problem with them in handling disputes.Don’t know their entire model,except they don’t have universal pope.
This leaves room for a lot of doctrinal confusion, does it not? It also allows abhorrent interpetations of Scripture (i.e: the Westboro Baptist Church phenomena) and your model does not allow for any repudiation of these hateful interpretations.Eeach church has free will and is subject to the Vicar, the HS.The proper alignment howver is seldom perfect as shown by the Revelation churches .Cause the method yields variance does not mean you change the method.
PRmerger;10741124:
So its about the pastors? Not about the truths they teach or their ordination, which gives them the authority to preach and administer the sacraments? Frankly, how do you know your current pastor is inspired or even born again? He certainly doesn’t have valid ordination from a successor of an apostle, like a Catholic or Orthodox priest has. What credentials did he need to become your pastor?Quote:
Firstly, then why aren’t you Orthodox?
Don’t know their entire model,except they don’t have universal pope.So not sure where we are “catholic” with them and where we are not. Well their model is that they are national churches (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc). Each of these churches has a heirarchy: priest, bishop, patriarch, and they decide doctrinal issues through synods, which are gatherings of neighboring bishops. The patriarchs preside over synods that they attend. Synod decrees are binding on the faithful in that particular synod’s responsible area.PRmerger;10741124:
Quote:
.Secondly, why does your church not follow this model?
Yes and no. Eeach church has free will and is subject to the Vicar, the HS.The proper alignment howver is seldom perfect as shown by the Revelation churches .Cause the method yields variance does not mean you change the method.PRmerger;10741124:
Quote:
Thirdly, you are agreed, then, that each church is autocephalus and can discern for herself that which she believes is the correct interpretation of God’s Word? Is this what you believe is the model that Christ established?
Can the truth vary or is it just popular opinion that varies. You see, that’s teh problem. Truth s are set by God, not by the vote of the people. And as anyone can see, public opinion is fickle and easily swayed. Afterall, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all had huge followings
Undesrtand CC view.Believe Protetstnat view however.I think it is stone not rock that Peter is called at the beginning of gospel. Again, this Gospel is the context , the glorious divine revelation that Jesus is our beloved Saviour and nothing can separate us from His love, not even the gates of hell. Your description of Pope is exactly what Mark says Christ said it is not, like worldly lordship and authority over.So lets discuss context. In Matthew 16, the passage begins with Jesus asking the Apostles to identify who he was. Some said Elijah, some said the prophets, but it was Simon who was inspired by God to declare that Jesus was the messiah, the son of the living God. And because God picked Simon, , Jesus renamed him the Rock (Cephas or Peter), on which He will build His church.
What is the role of the Church: it is to teach the truths about salvation and to administer the sacraments. What is the role of Peter? To be the official keeper and interpreter of those truths and to pass them down to future generations. What is the role of the Pope today: the same. Why is it necessary to have a pope? because you need an ultimate authority to go to for questions and to keep unity in the church.
PRmerger;10741124:
Poco …Cause not all ortodox pastors are inspired,even born again ,and that is not where I was birthed
"not where I was birthed " ?? Are you saying literal or spiritual birth ?
Lets say I was born a Mormon … or Unitarian, or an Atheist. Would I be allowed that as my ‘birth excuse’ … at my ‘particular judgment’ before Christ ?
U believer this way, because this was way you were Catechized. Now, the CC teaches otherwise. Do you say— because this was my early religious environment/training, it has to be correct ? Can we make claim to our singular correctness by ‘birthright’ defense ?Believe Protetstnat view however.I think it is stone not rock that Peter is called at the beginning of gospel. Again, this Gospel is the context , the glorious divine revelation that Jesus is our beloved Saviour and nothing can separate us from His love, not even the gates of hell. Your description of Pope is exactly what Mark says Christ said it is not, like worldly lordship and authority over
If you are really “born again” (and I don’t say that because I doubt it) and if you remain perfectly open to the Holy Spirit, I believe you will convert to Catholicism.Cause not all ortodox pastors are inspired,even born again ,and that is not where I was birthed
Don’t know their entire model,except they don’t have universal pope.So not sure where we are “catholic” with them and where we are not.Yes and no.
Eeach church has free will and is subject to the Vicar, the HS.The proper alignment howver is seldom perfect as shown by the Revelation churches .
Cause the method yields variance does not mean you change the method.
Well its up to us to present the Catholic view. Its up to you to decide whether to accept it.Undesrtand CC view.Believe Protetstnat view however.
If you could see me now, you would see me shaking my head in disbelief. How is a stone different from a rock?I think it is stone not rock that Peter is called at the beginning of gospel.
and in that same context, the divine revelation that Jesus is our beloved savior has the power to bind and lose in heaven and on earth? And that divine revelation was also given the keys to heaven? Who would have thought that an inspiration would be granted the power of church leadership?.Again, this Gospel is the context , the glorious divine revelation that Jesus is our beloved Saviour and nothing can separate us from His love, not even the gates of hell.
First of all, are you admitting that Mark said Christ defined the traits of the church’s leader? It sure seems that way and if Christ defined the traits of a leader, then there must be a leader. Secondly, how did I show that the Pope lords his authority over anyone. have you read the epistles of St. Peter? They don’t lord anything or anyone, yet they speak authoritatively. There is a difference.Your description of Pope is exactly what Mark says Christ said it is not, like worldly lordship and authority over.
That ignores the fact that he was not called stone.by Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ. See Peter the RockUndesrtand CC view.Believe Protetstnat view however.I think it is stone not rock that Peter is called at the beginning of gospel. Again, this Gospel is the context ,
Indeed! We all know Romans 8:35-39 is true and will readily cry amen and alleluia.the glorious divine revelation that Jesus is our beloved Saviour and nothing can separate us from His love,
This is not at all what Matthew 16:18 is speaking of. Furthermore, If (God forbid) any of us find ourselves on the inside of those gates of hell, they will indeed have cut us off from the love of God…by our own choice.not even the gates of hell.
I have lived under the reign of seven Popes in my lifetime and not a single one of them personified your allegation. Each was a holy servant of the Lord God of Hosts and each one tended Our Blessed Lord’s lambs and sheep just as Peter was asked to do. I think your allegation indicates either ignorance or prejudice, but either way it is not true.Your description of Pope is exactly what Mark says Christ said it is not, like worldly lordship and authority over.
pocohombre;10741784:
Of course spirtual birthPoco …
"not where I was birthed " ?? Are you saying literal or spiritual birth ?
Lets say I was born a Mormon … or Unitarian, or an Atheist. Would I be allowed that as my ‘birth excuse’ … at my ‘particular judgment’ before Christ ?
Again spiritual birth .Yes, righly dividing the scriptures as Paul would say. I like what you are saying though, that just cause you were raised such and such a way does not mean we are not to discern the truth of it, by the word of God and stand for our own judgement.U believer this way, because this was way you were Catechized. Now, the CC teaches otherwise. Do you say— because this was my early religious environment/training, it has to be correct ? Can we make claim to our singular correctness by ‘birthright’ defense ?
What did Paul teach Timothy to do … in 2 Timothy 2:15 ? “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”.