Does God want everyone to be Catholic?

[pocohombre]

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.

Don’t back me up in a corner that because I don’t say he was pope, that I am saying he was nothing. It reminds me of conversations about Mary where cause some do not pray to her or believe CC dogma on her that we do not venerate her at all. All or nothing type thing, which avoids genuine discussion… Peter was leader but not head. It was not just Peter that the discussion took place about gentiles, I think James was present also, not to mention it was put to council. Peter also had experience with gentiles so it further made sense for Paul to seek him out on this.Don’t forget not to put Peter too high for it is clear Paul rebuked him face to face also.If Peter indeed were head, he may have hesitated for he wouldn’t even do that to the chief priest as we see later. Leader yes,captain yes, but above others in authority, no.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

h 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 for your welcome It’s funny that my book gave wrong information, admittedly, about two words for Rock in Greek. However, I admit that you are right there, concerning the Aramaic words for “Rock.” As to the Greek being the inspired text, I agree there also. About the third thing, however, I do not understand you. What do you mean by this? As to your fourth point, what form of the word Rock was used? As to your fifth thing: I think that it is more reasonable to say that Jesus only called Peter “Satan” because Satan was using him. Remember, the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon him, and therefore I don’t think this verse can be used alone to denounce Peter as head of the Apostles. Your next point, however, is not as good as your previous ones. You must understand that when Jesus calls Peter “Rock” he is allowing him to share in his own “Rockness.”

As to your final attack “No-one called Peter ‘Rock’ until the 3-4th century.” This is obviously false, sense Jesus himself called Peter “rock” way before the 4th century.

Now I would like to make some of my own arguments for Peter’s Supremacy. As you know, Peter was given the “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.” What happens when a king goes on a journey? He chooses a Steward, and gives the keys to his kingdom to this steward. He doesn’t throw the keys into a whole pack of his advisers, saying “Okay everybody, just don’t lose them!” No, he gives them to a Steward, and the kingdom moves on.

 

[brb3]

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) ?

Same logic here that I used to use. Protestants think its OK for Christ to make Peter the head of the Apostles … since he had the Authority to do so. But, its not OK for the next generation of leaders, Bishops, to pick a LEADER over themselves !!

Protestants are so ‘spooked’ by thought of leadership by a man over us… “only Christ has that role, right, and divine authority”] !!! And well the Protestants should be ‘spooked’ by the thought of one man [their laity picks] having the Authority over them. For, they have seen where the Protestant Reformation has led us … into all manner of various leaderships / denoms / sects, etc.

Except … not the case in the RCC !!! The RCC has had the ‘divine authority’ in a Pope all along … and it has worked very well. Popes are very respectful of their KEY office position … and don’t ‘lord’ it over the other Bishops. Just as did Peter in 1st Century !!! He listened to Paul and ‘together’ they arrived at a decision on matter …which was declared by Peter.

Every earthly organization must have a leader. You can’t have ‘many chiefs’ running / being captain of the Ship. That is cause for certain mutiny !! Every sailor knows this is an ABSOLUTE in life. Christ knew his Church HAD TO HAVE A LEADER, that would listen to him from on high, and answer to the Master above … not to secular men. History has proven beyond doubt that Peter’s Office was meant to be continued … til the return of Christ to claim his Church for all time & eternity.

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

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,

Can we address the Eucharist? How are you on the literal reading of John Chapter 6? How is to be understood? Is your understanding the same or different from the original Christian Church of the late 1st and 2nd centuries? Have you heard of Peter Kreeft? His book Jesus Shock is a good read and explains why in ecumenical dialogue, it is the Eucharist which is paramount.

 

[pocohombre]

Pocohombre,

Can we address the Eucharist? How are you on the literal reading of John Chapter 6? How is to be understood? Is your understanding the same or different from the original Christian Church of the late 1st and 2nd centuries? Have you heard of Peter Kreeft? His book Jesus Shock is a good read and explains why in ecumenical dialogue, it is the Eucharist which is paramount.

Oh my gosh you got an hour? Lord willing when more time we can discuss.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c View Post
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.

Can you please describe the responsibilities Peter had as leader versus a head?

It was not just Peter that the discussion took place about gentiles, I think James was present also, not to mention it was put to council.

This event happened 14 years before the council from Galatians 1:13- 2:1
13* For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it,i 14and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions.j 15But when [God], who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleasedk 16to reveal his Son to me,l so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood,* 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia* and then returned to Damascus.

18* Then after three years* I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.m 19But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.* 20(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)o 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.p 22And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”q 24So they glorified God because of me.

1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas,* taking Titus along also

Peter also had experience with gentiles so it further made sense for Paul to seek him out on this.Don’t forget not to put Peter too high for it is clear Paul rebuked him face to face also.If Peter indeed were head, he may have hesitated for he wouldn’t even do that to the chief priest as we see later. Leader yes,captain yes, but above others in authority, no.

Its not quite clear how this rebuke of Peter took place. It most probably was done in private. To call Peter out in public, whether he was leader, head or simply another brother would have been uncharitable, don’t you think. And if Paul did it in private, then the dynamics were much different than if he was in court facing death.

 

[brb3]

Oh my gosh you got an hour? Lord willing when more time we can discuss.

Yes we do. Every week at Mass.
Where Catholics get recharged via Eucharist !!

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Oh yea Which reminds me, I’ll be going to church soon, in about two hours. If we have some time, I’d love to hear how you guys interpret John 6

 

[Elizabeth779]

Yes, he does. EVERYone.

 

[JamesCaruso]

It’s hard to “interpret” Scriptures that are not only straight forward, but which Jesus further emphasizes to his apostles after the people murmur. One of those who persisted in disbelief was Judas.

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 65And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that people hearing Jesus’ words secondhand, as it were, in the Bible, are in exactly the same position as those who heard him talk about eating his flesh in person, but it does underline the fact that our minds are darkened until and unless the Father permits us to see. Pray that the Father will open our eyes wide to the truth which is more precious than any treasure we could own on this earth.

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

We are trying to answer the question, “Does God want everyone to be Catholic?” I think that it is appropriate to read today’s Gospel reading:

John 17:20-26

Lifting up his eyes to heaven, Jesus prayed saying: “I pray not only for these, but also for those who will believe me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me. Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world. Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, I know you, and they know that you sent me. I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”

Where did our Hindu friend go? We are not able to evangelize the world while we argue with one another. The world has difficulty with Christianity because we are divided and not one as our Lord prayed we would be. This is a great stumbling block to the faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Where did our Hindu friend go? We are not able to evangelize the world while we argue with one another. The world has difficulty with Christianity because we are divided and not one as our Lord prayed we would be. This is a great stumbling block to the faith.

Indeed. The existence of tens of thousands of Christian denominations give many a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, atheist pause. And who could blame them?

However, I want to point out that most of what occurs here on the CAFs is not arguing but rather intellectual debate, discourse and dialogue–which is fun, insightful, and always a good thing.

 

[AloysiusBologna]

However, I want to point out that most of what occurs here on the CAFs is not arguing but rather intellectual debate, discourse and dialogue–which is fun, insightful, and always a good thing.

Sorry……can’t let that one slide…NOT ALWAYS!npatrol:

And after that commercial back to our “show”…:ballspin:

 

[paul_c]

Indeed. The existence of tens of thousands of Christian denominations give many a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, atheist pause. And who could blame them?

However, I want to point out that most of what occurs here on the CAFs is not arguing but rather intellectual debate, discourse and dialogue–which is fun, insightful, and always a good thing.

there is no better way to learn the faith than to have to answer a critic on a point you hadn’t considered.

 

[PRmerger]

there is no better way to learn the faith than to have to answer a critic on a point you hadn’t considered.

Yep. :yup:

Occasionally there will be a member here who will object to the format here on the CAFs, proclaiming that love is all we need, or something to that effect.

Firstly, I find it peculiar that someone would take the time to register for a forum–whose primary focus is to promote and refute religious ideas–yet object to the promotion and refutation of religious ideas.

Secondly, it is contrary to the Scriptures to proclaim “love is all we need” if that means that we cannot discuss and, yes, even argue about what and whom we are loving.

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

Several of you may have misunderstood the tone of my last post. The sadness is directed not at enthusiastic Catholics in the forum who defend the faith, but towards Protestants who continue to protest against that which they do not know and in turn create stumbling blocks to the faith.

 

[Chez]

Several of you may have misunderstood the tone of my last post. The sadness is directed not at enthusiastic Catholics in the forum who defend the faith, but towards Protestants who continue to protest against that which they do not know and in turn create stumbling blocks to the faith.

I don’t know who could have misunderstood you… And it is sad!

They not only create stumbling blocks for themselves, but for all Christians.

It’s not an easy task to live a good Christian life when so called, good Christians, (including far too many Catholic’s), have rejected the teachings of the One True Church that Christ established!

From birth control, to adultery (ALL forms), divorce, homosexual marriage… And on, and on, and on! The Communion on earth is not as strong as it use to be.

The way things are now, a Catholic who truly lives the Faith, has no encouragement from our increasingly secular society. And the Christian denominations are becoming more and more secular as they interpret Scripture to fit the whims of an increasingly secular society!.. Whew!

Well… It is the narrow path, and we travel it because He asks us to.
So travel it we will!

No matter how small the Communion of Catholics living the Faith becomes… I know with every ounce of my being…
That God Wants Us All To Be Catholic!

Keep fighting the good fight my fellow Catholics,
God Bless!

P.S. I had to stay out of the discussion with pocohomre… His interpretation of Scripture was “convoluted”… I don’t apologize for saying so!

 

[JMHetrick]

Yes as in “Universal” Christian, the original meaning of “catholic”. Now if you mean Roman Catholic as some church signs post in my area,I will answer with an old song lyric,as my last post/thread talked about another song “Imagine"by Ono/Lennon. This lyric goes, “Don’t ask me what I think of you, I might not give you the answer that you want me to”. I will give an affirmative to 2 posts before me, God will’s that none should perish but that all have eternal life. Another post told the story of a “pilgrim” about to finish his sojourning and at a distance sees St.Peter at the Pearly Gates and shouts out, " Brother, do you see any Baptists up there?” St Peter says, “No”. Pilgrim aks again," Do you see any Anglicans up there"? St. Peter ,“No”. “Any Catholics?” “No”. “Any Orthodox?” “No, we don’t go by those names up here”. Pilgrim perplexed asks,“Well then who is up there?” St. Peter says, “Just those souls washed by the Blood of the Lamb”.

This perfectly fits with my understanding of Christ’s teaching. Thank you.

 

[dronald]

Indeed. The existence of tens of thousands of Christian denominations give many a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, atheist pause. And who could blame them?

However, I want to point out that most of what occurs here on the CAFs is not arguing but rather intellectual debate, discourse and dialogue–which is fun, insightful, and always a good thing.

There are just too many people who had no knowledge of Jesus that came to accept Him through non Catholic missionaries to other countries.

God certainly uses Protestants to spread the name of Jesus to those who would not otherwise learn about Him.

Tens of thousands of denominations = 800,000 Protestants which = to a ridiculous amount of missionaries. Christ’s Church will grow, and grow and grow because of our love for Him. Catholic or Protestant, we’re all in this together to bring more to Jesus.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocohombre View Post
Yes as in “Universal” Christian, the original meaning of “catholic”. Now if you mean Roman Catholic as some church signs post in my area,I will answer with an old song lyric,as my last post/thread talked about another song “Imagine"by Ono/Lennon. This lyric goes, “Don’t ask me what I think of you, I might not give you the answer that you want me to”. I will give an affirmative to 2 posts before me, God will’s that none should perish but that all have eternal life. Another post told the story of a “pilgrim” about to finish his sojourning and at a distance sees St.Peter at the Pearly Gates and shouts out, " Brother, do you see any Baptists up there?” St Peter says, “No”. Pilgrim aks again," Do you see any Anglicans up there"? St. Peter ,“No”. “Any Catholics?” “No”. “Any Orthodox?” “No, we don’t go by those names up here”. Pilgrim perplexed asks,“Well then who is up there?” St. Peter says, “Just those souls washed by the Blood of the Lamb”.

You might make a nice story out of it, but the question remains" what souls were washed by the blood of the lamb and why?" So how do you answer this question?