Does God want everyone to be Catholic?

[brb3]

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.

Yes … and while you were perhaps raised only on Protestant ‘milk’ …now you are investigating the fuller truths, and searching for the ONE Church … that provides us the real spiritual ‘meat’ … that Paul taught his Catholic / Universal / Apostolic Church flocks … in all the different Asia Minor churches he started.
Where the true presence Eucharista was served by Paul and Timothy …the Blessing of Melchezidek, that is the true meat and drink of Immortality [per Christ & confirmed by the ECF’s ].

 

[pocohombre]

If you could see me now, you would see me shaking my head in disbelief. How is a stone different from a rock?

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

That is easy.Go upt to a big rock,an immovable boulder rock and chip off a stone from it.You then will have a stone from the rock .Rock is the mother mass.Stone is from the rock.Hence petros and petras, male, female if I recall correctly

Oh I know that one. You must remember, that though the Gospels were written in Greek, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The only word for “rock” in Aramaic is “Kephas”. Now, why did the inspired author of the Greek write like this? The Catholic answer is that the word “Petros” is feminine. So, its like this. Instead of giving the name “Danielle” to Peter, he gave the name “Daniel”. Only, the Masculine form of the word was “Petri,” which as you know, means stone, or pebble. Thanks to Stephen K. Ray’s “Upon This Rock.”

 

[paul_c]

paul c;10744281:

If you could see me now, you would see me shaking my head in disbelief. How is a stone different from a rock?

That is easy.Go upt to a big rock,an immovable boulder rock and chip off a stone from it.You then will have a stone from the rock .Rock is the mother mass.Stone is from the rock.Hence petros and petras, male, female if I recall correctly

But Jesus wasn’t speaking in Greek, he was speaking in Aramaic, so he actually called him Kephas, which means rock or stone. there were problems when translating this to Greek because the word for rock is feminine in that language and of course that wouldn’t be appropriate as a name for Simon.

paul c;10744281:

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?.

So divine revelation can not be a key?Do we not know that we speak with authority because He is behind it ?When we speak His words who is binding loosening ,penetrating human hearts ,us?His word is already bound in heaven,now it must be bound on Earth

sure, divine revelation could be THE key, but the rock is not the key, It is the recipient of the key. and of course, that makes no sense logically of linguistically.

paul c;10744281:

Quote:
.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

.Again, no one is denying Peter was a leader/spokesperson of the twleve, but he is not the general manager,not even coach but closest thing would be a player captain. Never the less, many giftings and offices are discussed in epistles, except this head bishop /leader thing.Not talked about.

Boy this is grudging progress In your mind, you have accepted Peter as team captain of the apostles. This is surprising since I never recognized any team captain position mentioned in the bible either. Nevertheless, Acts of the Apostles show Peter exercising all the same roles that Pope Francis does today.

He replaces apostles (now bishops) --Acts 1
He interprets scripture Acts 1-5
He defines scripture (2Peter 3)
He administers the sacraments and defines the process for their administration (acts 2)
He excommunicates Simon Magnus
He defines doctrine (Acts 15)
He speaks for the church to the people and the secular leadership (acts 2-5)
He travels the countryside healing and preaching to the people (Acts 5)
He gives advice and counsel to the priests (1Peter 4)

paul c;10744281:

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.

Yes, as authoritatively as St.Paul or St. Mark or St. Luke etc.

YOu said he lorded it over them. Did he or didn’t he?

 

[pablope]

n’t he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
If you could see me now, you would see me shaking my head in disbelief. How is a stone different from a rock?

“Magenta”]That is easy.Go upt to a big rock,an immovable boulder rock and chip off a stone from it.You then will have a stone from the rock .Rock is the mother mass.Stone is from the rock.Hence petros and petras, male, female if I recall correctly

But Jesus wasn’t speaking in Greek, he was speaking in Aramaic, so he actually called him Kephas, which means rock or stone. there were problems when translating this to Greek because the word for rock is feminine in that language and of course that wouldn’t be appropriate as a name for Simon.

John 1:42

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

 

[Hamlet123]

Oh I know that one. You must remember, that though the Gospels were written in Greek, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The only word for “rock” in Aramaic is “Kephas”. Now, why did the inspired author of the Greek write like this? The Catholic answer is that the word “Petros” is feminine. So, its like this. Instead of giving the name “Danielle” to Peter, he gave the name “Daniel”. Only, the Masculine form of the word was “Petri,” which as you know, means stone, or pebble. Thanks to Stephen K. Ray’s “Upon This Rock.”

I have a sister-in-law. The disappointment that she was a first child and not being a male gave her father the lattitude to name her after him by feminizing his name. His name is Glenn her name is Glenda.

I have been told by a number of apologist that the argument about the “Rock” being a small rock is seldom used anymore by protestants but (except) by those who have a very small understanding of the bible.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Again, no one is denying Peter was a leader/spokesperson of the twleve, but he is not the general manager,not even coach but closest thing would be a player captain. Never the less, many giftings and offices are discussed in epistles, except this head bishop /leader thing.Not talked about.

Are you open to the idea then, that the authority of Christ’s Church resides collectively in the bishops of the Church? In Catholicism, for example, there are two ways in which infallibility in matters of faith and morals are seen as conveyed to the Church, one, in the Pope speaking alone, and two, in all the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope, speaking together.

 

[pocohombre]

Oh I know that one. You must remember, that though the Gospels were written in Greek, Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The only word for “rock” in Aramaic is “Kephas”. Now, why did the inspired author of the Greek write like this? The Catholic answer is that the word “Petros” is feminine. So, its like this. Instead of giving the name “Danielle” to Peter, he gave the name “Daniel”. Only, the Masculine form of the word was “Petri,” which as you know, means stone, or pebble. Thanks to Stephen K. Ray’s “Upon This Rock.”

Oh shucks, I thought this was going to be easy. Welcome DanL Aramaic does have other words for rock/stone one being “shua”. Secondly, the Greek is the inspired text ,not Aramaic.Thirdly, Jesus has the feminine “rock” applied to Him elsewhere in the NT,not to mention OT also .Fourthly, rock is used 33 times in OT, always denoting God ,as well as NT, as CC agrees, except this one time in Matt. according to CC. Fifthly, taking into context the chapter, Peter is only "rock/stone"as long as he is walking in divine light ,else he falters ( Get behind me Satan just a few verses forward). Peter being a stone matches context better for it can be "thrown ,and is best when resting on the bigger rock. There is no variance,moving this "rockmass’, and could only be Christ and His work( in us). Sixthly ,early fathers Ignatius,Martyr,Hermas,say Christ is rock,though not referencing Mat. No one says Peter is rock till 3-4th century . Thank you TR Valentine for your article on this matter.
.

 

[pocohombre]

But Jesus wasn’t speaking in Greek, he was speaking in Aramaic, so he actually called him Kephas, which means rock or stone. there were problems when translating this to Greek because the word for rock is feminine in that language and of course that wouldn’t be appropriate as a name for Simon.

 

[pocohombre]

Are you open to the idea then, that the authority of Christ’s Church resides collectively in the bishops of the Church? In Catholicism, for example, there are two ways in which infallibility in matters of faith and morals are seen as conveyed to the Church, one, in the Pope speaking alone, and two, in all the Bishops of the Church, including the Pope, speaking together.

I would say the latter is what happened in Jerusalem, with the note that Peter at best was "captain " but not more as “Pope” would suggest.

 

[pocohombre]

sure, divine revelation could be THE key, but the rock is not the key, It is the recipient of the key. and of course, that makes no sense logically of linguistically.

 

[paul_c]

paul c;10747244:

Agree.Don’t think I said rock was key. Peter indeed received the keys, and I put forth so did all the apostles, down to us, down to anyone proclaiming the Good News. The apostles were all present when Christ spoke to Peter and heard it all, as I believe was intended. Apparently they did not take it to be exclusive to Peter for just a bit later they were quibbling as to whom would be greater ( on two occasions AFTER Peter being made “pope”).

the keys were only given to Peter. who now you must admit was the rock on which Jesus built his church. as for the quibbling, Jesus set that straight in Luke 22 as I previoiusly described.

 

[pocohombre]

YOu said he lorded it over them. Did he or didn’t he?

No, I think I said Jesus said the world has leadership that is “over” others and has authority “over” others and that this would not be in His church. I understand you are saying it is an attitude thing that Christ was inferring, that there still would be a chief . I am saying that also but saying the office is different also .The world has ceos,managers, but the most I would make of the “chief” office is team captain. Further,didn’t see it extending past Peter.That is not to say God does not have “a man for all seasons”, at any given time, but I would not regiment it thru an office, though some popes were that “man” .

 

[paul_c]

No, I think I said Jesus said the world has leadership that is “over” others and has authority “over” others and that this would not be in His church. I understand you are saying it is an attitude thing that Christ was inferring, that there still would be a chief . I am saying that also but saying the office is different also .The world has ceos,managers, but the most I would make of the “chief” office is team captain. Further,didn’t see it extending past Peter.That is not to say God does not have “a man for all seasons”, at any given time, but I would not regiment it thru an office, though some popes were that “man” .

Do you acknowledge the roles Peter played in acts that I posted a few notes ago? If those are what you see as a team captains role, I can live with that. As for the office, why would the office of bishop have successors but not the office of Pope, the bishop of Rome? And surely you recognize that bishops must be replaced when the previous bishop dies or resigns or the church would simply cease to exist. When your pastor leaves, he will also be replaced or your church ends. if how things have to work in a work of mortal beings. One generation replaces the previous one.

 

[pocohombre]

He replaces apostles (now bishops) --Acts 1

Well, he didn’t, but they prayed the Lord would choose, by lots.Peter was spokesman for the action.It does not say it was his idea ,nor that he interpreted scripture.It only says they were all together,praying ,fasting and I imagine talking things over.Then he led the action yes

He interprets scripture Acts 1-5

Not sure except that he put it forth(sermon) ,again leader and spokesperson .It does not say the revelation came to him alone They were all together and to single him out as the enlightened one is not scriptural. .
Yes, he bears witness to the gifting and sanctity of paul’s epistles.Not sure but i believe other writers make proclamations ot sanctity and properness of their writings also,but yes Peter definitely did good here ,I agree

He administers the sacraments and defines the process for their administration (acts 2)

Come on ,after the sermon of all sermons you assume .Scripture does not say who baptized them ,only that Peter told them too ,and as far as process,it had already happened ,that is they were converted and received the gospel happily then were baptized. The process was not set in stone for it was just the opposite with Cornelius.

He excommunicates Simon Magnus

Paul also admonished such action

He defines doctrine (Acts 15)

Yes, he testified to what God had told him, and is astute to see what happened to his and paul’s gentiles without the law and circumcision.However ,he is humble and puts it in the form of a question ,and states what they all believe already …James made the final decree,and definitely not in a question form as Peter .I am with you that Peter testified and spoke beautifully, and carried much weight.

He speaks for the church to the people and the secular leadership (acts 2-5)
He travels the countryside healing and preaching to the people (Acts 5)

Yes beautifully, as would all the apostles in future.

He gives advice and counsel to the priests (1Peter 4)

Just scanned the chapter and would agree if you mean the priesthood of all believers with giftings(including a “speaker”)

 

[paul_c]

Well, he didn’t, but they prayed the Lord would choose, by lots.Peter was spokesman for the action.It does not say it was his idea ,nor that he interpreted scripture.It only says they were all together,praying ,fasting and I imagine talking things over.Then he led the action yes
Not sure except that he put it forth(sermon) ,again leader and spokesperson .It does not say the revelation came to him alone They were all together and to single him out as the enlightened one is not scriptural. .
Yes, he bears witness to the gifting and sanctity of paul’s epistles.Not sure but i believe other writers make proclamations ot sanctity and properness of their writings also,but yes Peter definitely did good here ,I agree
Come on ,after the sermon of all sermons you assume .Scripture does not say who baptized them ,only that Peter told them too ,and as far as process,it had already happened ,that is they were converted and received the gospel happily then were baptized. The process was not set in stone for it was just the opposite with Cornelius.
Paul also admonished such action
Yes, he testified to what God had told him, and is astute to see what happened to his and paul’s gentiles without the law and circumcision.However ,he is humble and puts it in the form of a question ,and states what they all believe already …James made the final decree,and definitely not in a question form as Peter .I am with you that Peter testified and spoke beautifully, and carried much weight.
yesbeautifully ,as would all the apostles in future.
Just scanned the chapter and would agree if you mean the priesthood of all believers with giftings(including a “speaker”)

Can’t you see how Peter is leading the church and that Luke is making it clear through his actions that Peter is in charge. Keep in mind, also, that in Acts 15:7, Peter makes the undisputed claim that " My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe". And Paul also recognizes Peters Apostolate to the Jews in [BIBLEDRB]Galatians 2:7-8[/BIBLEDRB],

So if Peter in charge of bringing the gospel to both the gentiles and the Jews, he is in charge of everyone. (and I know that Paul claims he is the apostle to the gentiles, but he did not object to Peter’s claim of the gentile apostlate at the council of Jerusalem and the account was written by Luke, who was Paul’s traveling companion)

 

[JamesCaruso]

I would say the latter is what happened in Jerusalem, with the note that Peter at best was "captain " but not more as “Pope” would suggest.

Does that mean you are open to the idea of the Catholic Church being the guardian of the fullness of the truth, guaranteed by Our Lord, but collectively in the pronouncements of the bishops and not in the Pope alone? That would be a major step toward becoming a Catholic. It would mean, even though you cannot accept the Pope as infallible, you can accept the teachings of the Church in it’s entirety. But of course, PH, I am not assuming you have come this far, or that you even want to, only that it wouldn’t much matter, in a sense, if you only considered Peter to be the captain at best, because it would mean that you accepted all the teachings, which if fact I don’t think you do. (Gets kind of convoluted at times!)

This “Bishops or Pope or both” was the serious debate in the Church for the longest time, as you probably already know.

I wonder if you think it started out that way, and at some point it was interrupted for some reason? What point, ir any, was that? What had already been given the bishops’ collective stamp of approval? What about one of the most central and significant dogmas of the Church, the Real Presence of Jesus, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist?

I’m sorry if I’m being less clear than usual.

Peace.

 

[pocohombre]

As for the office, why would the office of bishop have successors but not the office of Pope, the bishop of Rome? .

That is a good question .For sure there was a unique time, when the church launched off the pad with twelve, forming our foundation .For sure Peter was big .One must admit that the scenario at the beginning was unique. Also, leadership in Peter is sometimes defined more in taking the initiative. As far as decisions, it was always done together. That is you don’t need a chief to make decisions when you have a council. You do need a "president’ of the council but that is not what you mean by pope. I suppose if you see Peter with a papal lens you would see it natural to need a successor. If you see Peter with Peter as first amongst equals or as lead spokesperson or team captain you see the church doing quite well in that continuance, with the Lord really choosing that man for all seasons. I see it as deciding between Peter’s methodology of choosing (by lots) or God’s methodology (knocking a Saul of Tarsus down). Shall we have a king always or a prophet from time to time ( an OT scenario) ?

 

[pocohombre]

Does that mean you are open to the idea of the Catholic Church being the guardian of the fullness of the truth, guaranteed by Our Lord, but collectively in the pronouncements of the bishops and not in the Pope alone? That would be a major step toward becoming a Catholic. It would mean, even though you cannot accept the Pope as infallible, you can accept the teachings of the Church in it’s entirety. But of course, PH, I am not assuming you have come this far, or that you even want to, only that it wouldn’t much matter, in a sense, if you only considered Peter to be the captain at best, because it would mean that you accepted all the teachings, which if fact I don’t think you do. (Gets kind of convoluted at times!)

This “Bishops or Pope or both” was the serious debate in the Church for the longest time, as you probably already know.

I wonder if you think it started out that way, and at some point it was interrupted for some reason? What point, ir any, was that? What had already been given the bishops’ collective stamp of approval? What about one of the most central and significant dogmas of the Church, the Real Presence of Jesus, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist?

I’m sorry if I’m being less clear than usual.

Peace.

It is late but thanks for reminding me of that serious debate -councils vs pope.I forgot I read that as we discussed and researched the council of trent (which seems like a million posts ago) Your honesty here is refreshing at such a late hour.Till the next time.good night

 

[paul_c]

That is a good question .For sure there was a unique time, when the church launched off the pad with twelve, forming our foundation .For sure Peter was big .One must admit that the scenario at the beginning was unique. Also, leadership in Peter is sometimes defined more in taking the initiative. As far as decisions, it was always done together. That is you don’t need a chief to make decisions when you have a council. You do need a "president’ of the council but that is not what you mean by pope. I suppose if you see Peter with a papal lens you would see it natural to need a successor. If you see Peter with Peter as first amongst equals or as lead spokesperson or team captain you see the church doing quite well in that continuance, with the Lord really choosing that man for all seasons. I see it as deciding between Peter’s methodology of choosing (by lots) or God’s methodology (knocking a Saul of Tarsus down). Shall we have a king always or a prophet from time to time ( an OT scenario) ?

Peter’s leadership style was to convince others that he was right. and of course, he backed up his authority with great power and miracles. Isn’t it clear from Galatians that Paul recognized Peter as the head of the church, the only apostle he bothers to consult with.