Drawn to Catholicism...but have reservations.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thepeug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini writes:

But our break from Rome was a long and messy process, and it can’t simply be reduced to Henry VIII’s desire for an annulment.

Nevertheless, because of his desire to marry Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII removed the English Church from obedience to the Roman See to obedience to himself and pronounced himself the new head of the church in England. He suppressed some 600+ monasteries to obtain funds and murdered hundreds of bishops, monks, nobles, and women. However, he never tampered with other Catholic doctrines. The final protestantization of the English church was accomplished by Edward VI.

I don’t know who came up with the “branch” theory – do you?

Thanks.
Jay
 
:Nevertheless, because of his desire to marry Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII removed the English Church from obedience to the Roman See to obedience to himself and pronounced himself the new head of the church in England.:

True, but as I said that was not the end of the story.

: However, he never tampered with other Catholic doctrines.:

Not quite. Some limited protestantization did take place in his reign, though it was a very stop-and-start affair.

: The final protestantization of the English church was accomplished by Edward VI.:

But not really “final,” since it was undone by Mary and more moderately redone by Elizabeth, and even then it wasn’t clear at the time that this was the final stage.

:I don’t know who came up with the “branch” theory – do you?:

In its strictest form, I believe it was the creation of an 19th-century Anglo-Catholic named William Palmer. Palmer went to Russia to try to get recognition from the Orthodox for Anglicanism as a branch of the Church, but ironically his own bishop wouldn’t give him a letter of recognition because he regarded the Orthodox as unreformed heretics! The Russians quite understandably wouldn’t recognize Palmer as more than an individual who might be interested in converting. Palmer seriously considered Orthodoxy but in the end became disillusioned with what he regarded as their lack of functional unity (the Greeks wouldn’t recognize his Anglican baptism; the Russians would) and the subservience of the Russian Church to the State. The final irony in Palmer’s career is that he ultimately became Catholic . . . .

That being said, one can find the branch theory earlier, depending on what we mean by it. The 17th-century Anglicans who claimed to adhere to the faith of the Church before the division of East and West were maintaining a sort of branch theory, and Hooker’s understanding of the Church (or that of the Articles, for that matter) as made up of national churches could also be counted. The big difference, of course, is that the 16th-century Anglicans had no doubt that continental Protestant churches were true churches–the debate was whether and to what extent “Rome” could be included!

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Ok, the “royal we” makes sense, for the most part. One more question pertaining to it, though: does the Pope use “we” all the time, or only when issuing infallible statements, when he is theoretically speaking with the voice of God? Considering that the Pope is ordinarily a fallible human like the rest of us, I wouldn’t think that he would presume to speak as Christ all the time. Any ideas?

Also, does anyone have any thoughts concerning the Isaiah passage mentioned above, or would that be something more appropriate to ask a priest?
Peace,
Chris
 
Well, I guess you’ve gotten a lot to consider, with all the responses and web referrals.

I’m sure in your readings that you’ve seen the Peter was the rock that Jesus founded his Church on. If you pay attention to your whole Bible (and not pick and choose only some verses as so many persons do) you can easily see that Peter was named Rock (Peter, Kefa, Cephas) by Jesus. I keep asking people “What does it mean when God changes your name?” Many people would like to ignore that. In Matthew you have likely discovered that Jesus gave Peter keys – in the Bible that is a symbol of a high office.

You probably noticed that Jesus prayed for Peter, that he may strengthen the others. Notice the count of number of times Simon-Peter/Cefas is mentioned in the Bible compared to any other person. That count IS significant to Jewish authors of 2000 years ago.

When you advance to the earliest Christian writings, if you read the whole writing in context you see the recognition of the primacy of Peter and of the person holding his office to resolve problems within and amongst the local churches.

As you continue to advance in Christianity and your knowledge of it, you will study more of history than what is in the early Christian writings. While some of the events are ugly, you won’t find any other institution in history that has born up as well, suffered the challenges from within and with, nor held as consistent a teaching as the Catholic Church.

I encourage you to invite the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He WILL lead you to all truth. Persist in your studies, and as you learn more, carefully look at the subtleties that are being presented to you.

God bless!
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Hey, everybody. I’m new to this forum, and I have a LOT of questions about Catholicism, so I hope you can help me out 🙂 . I was raised an Episcopalian, and I still attend that church with my family when I go home, but over the last few months I have begun to yearn for a return to the “ancient” church. I’m attracted to Catholicism because of the sense of unity that it promotes, as well as the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I attend a Catholic Church here at school (UNC-Chapel Hill…go Tarheels!) that I absolutely love; partly becuase it is so similar to an Episcopal service, partly becuase it is a service that is geared towards college students, and partly because the priest is an awesome guy.
Code: 
 That said, there are several issues that I have with the Church that make me hesitant to embrace it more fully.  One of these issues is the immense amount of power that the Pope wields.  I just have a hard time believe that Jesus ever intended Peter to function as an infallible spiritual monarch who has the power to bind the conscience of all of his followers.  Such an idea diminishes the roles of the other Apostles, and even the idea of Jesus as the Head of the Church.  Peter wasn't exactly a model of wisdom; Jesus calls him "Satan" after granting him the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven.'  And Peter was married, which certainly isn't bad, but is interesting in light of the whole priestly celibacy deal.  
 
 So my question is:  was Peter meant to be the universal head of the Church?  After reading on a few Orthodox forums, I'm under the impression that the centuries after Jesus' death were a time in which the Roman bishop sought to consolidate increasing amounts of power.  This "grab for power" culminated in the split in 1054.  Orthodox Christians lead one to believe that the *original* Church was comprised of 5 different churches in Antioch, Rome, Syria, and two other places.  Each church was headed by a bishop, but they all cooperated on matters of doctrine and administration.  The Roman church split from the others becuase it wanted more power, which leads some Orthodox to call the Pope at that time "the first Protestant.'
 
 Another point of contention is the idea that new doctrine is "revealed' to the Church throughout history as an expansion of the 'depositum fidei' or however you spell it.  Is this not merely a means by which the Pope can justify the implementation of new doctrine on a whim by claiming that it was revealed to him by God?  What if something is revealed that contradicts previous doctrine?  Is the previous doctrine no longer valid?  Orthodox Christians claim that they do not add or subtract new doctrine, but have maintained the original principles of faith as granted to the Apostles by Jesus.  This seems to be a more solid base upon which to build one's faith.  There are lots of things that I don't understand about Orthodox Christianity either, however; the idea that the Father is more important than the Son and Holy Spirit makes no sense.  Neither does the idea that God, Mary, or the saints are somehow incarnate in icons, man-made pieces of wood before which one bows and kisses and prays.

 Please don't think that I'm bashing the Catholic Church or supporting the EOC.  I'm inexplicably drawn to Catholicism, but part of my journey of faith involves questioning.  I'm just grateful that God has planted within me the desire to know more about Him and the ways in which we seek to know Him.  Any thoughts that you have on any of these subjects are greatly appreciated!
                        Peace,
                               Chris
Click to expand...
Hey Thep,

Start with the following…and if you have any more questions…just prvt msg me.

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
 
I would recommend asking a priest about that verse from Isaiah…so you would have a more “official” standpoint. God Bless.
 
I highly recommend Dave Armstrong’s book A Biblical Defence of Catholicism. His site is ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM. He does a very good job of explaining the Biblical basis for this. I think others have provided links to the historical evidence (and Biblical).
 
Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16. Now like I said in an earlier post, Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church…but there are other secondary and derivative foundations other than Christ as this verse proves:
Ephesians 2:19-20
19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.
Christ is the ultimate foundation, but the apostles and prophets can also be considered a secondary foundation of the Church (the first layers if you will…like in the book of Revelation where the New Jerusalem has 12 layers of wall representing the 12 apostles).

Furthermore, in this specific passage that we are considering, Jesus is seen as the builder, not the building itself (…I will build…). Peter is to be the visible foundation of the Church after Christ was gone…a visible point of unity. His job would be to keep the Church united, to preach the Gospel, and with his fellow apostles, ensure that sound doctrine and proper discipline was kept.
 
Let’s look at the passage:
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Who or what is the subject of verses 17 to 19? It is Peter. This should be quite clear, for Jesus starts his proclamation with “Blessed art though, Simon…” and then addresses Peter directly “and you are Peter…” and then continues to use the singular pronoun ‘you’ (it is singular in the Greek, check it out for yourself…he is not addressing the apostles as a whole, he is addressing Peter specifically). Peter is the subject. The name Peter means rock, and would appear as Kepha in the Aramaic (the language Jesus would probably have been speaking at the time), which was a very unusual name in that era, used only as a title or name, before this instance, when referring to God Himself in the Old Testament. Jesus clearly establishes who the Rock is (in this particular passage…like I said, Jesus is the ultimate rock of our faith) by directly telling Peter that he is rock. “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church.” Peter is Kepha, and on Kepha Jesus would build His Church. (In the actual Gospel it is written in Greek, not Aramaic, but like I said, Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic, and there is only one word for rock in that language, Kepha). You can not go a few verses above and try to apply that subject to ‘this rock’ when Jesus has identified Peter as rock just a few words before…why did Jesus proclaim Peter rock and immediately thereafter state that He would build His church on ‘this rock’? It would make far more sense, if Peter is not the rock, for Jesus to simply say “I will build my Church on this rock”, but He did not…he clearly emphasized that Peter is Rock. There are many essays and such that do a wonderful job of defending this position…Catholics, and also many Protestants and Orthodox scholars agree that the language of this passage demands that Peter is the rock (again, a secondary and derivative foundation or layer ultimately supported by Christ…just how the apostles and prophets as a whole are the foundation of the Church, as the Bible clearly states, yet Christ is the chief cornerstone).
 
Dave Armstrong, in A Biblical Defence of Catholicism (Chapter Ten) says this:
  • It has often been argued to the contrary that Jesus called Peter petros (literally, “stone”), not petra (the word for “rock” in the passage), so that the “rock” wasn’t Peter, but this is simply explained by the necessity for a proper male name in Greek to be in the masculine gender. In Aramaic, however (the language Jesus spoke), the name kepha would have been used for both “rock” and “Peter.” Matthew could just as easily have used another Greek word for “stone,” lithos, in contrast to “rock,” but this would have distorted the unmistakable word-play of the passage, which is the whole point!*
    (© Copyright 2001, Dave Armstrong)
After this Jesus continues to use the singular you pronoun (so He is addressing Peter alone) and makes the following pronouncements:
*“ I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”*It is true, like Whistler said, that Jesus also gives this binding and loosing authority to the other apostles, but Protestants are missing three important points when they point this out:
  1. Jesus specifically gives this authority to Peter, using the singular pronoun, while he gives the authority to the other apostles in a more general fashion (plural you) (this makes perfect sense to Catholics, as the bishops, as the successors of the apostles, also have teaching and disciplinary authority, but it is subservient to the head bishop, the Successor of Peter).
  2. Jesus gave Peter alone the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
  3. Jesus gave this authority of binding and loosing to Peter first before he did to any of the other apostles.
    Now, binding and loosing is rabbinical terminology which referred to their authority to teach and impose disciplines. Jesus gave this binding and loosing authority (which the Pharisees and the like currently had…see Matthew 23:1-3, where Jesus commands His disciples to obey the Pharisees for they sit on the chair of Moses) to Peter, first of all, and then to the apostles, secondly, for the New Covenant. This authority, as I argued in earlier posts, and which can be further supported by what we see in the writings of the Church Fathers, starting in the early second, and perhaps even late first, centuries (follow my links in the earlier posts) was passed on to the bishops. This binding and loosing authority is recognized by God, for Jesus said “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (emphasis added)…so it is our Christian duty to obey the successors of the apostles (and especially the successor of their chief, Peter).
    Of binding and loosing, Marvin Vincent writes:
    *No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (John 20:23) . . . *
    (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887), 4 vols., vol. 1, 96, as quoted in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, Dave Armstrong).
The Keys to the Kingdom do not simply mean that Peter was the first to open up the Kingdom (by preaching the Gospel) to the Jews and to the Gentiles. That interpretation ignores the historical and Biblical context of what the ‘keys’ of a kingdom represented. In Biblical times, the term ‘the keys’ represented the authority of that kingdom. Kings would delegate authority to a steward or prime minister. To be given the keys (metaphorically) is to be given authority over that kingdom under the King. (This does not mean that Jesus was going to leave the Church solely in the hands of Peter and his successors…they would simply be the subordinate steward/governor/prime minister under the King that would directly govern the affairs of the Kingdom on earth and serve as a point of visible unity…like the other apostles did in a subordinate way).
 
This concept can be seen in the Old Testament in the following passage:
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.”
(Isa. 22:20-23, ASV, emphasis added).
Notice the clear parallels. Compare:
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
to what Jesus told Peter:
*“I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”*Again we see that possessing the keys of something represents authority in this verse:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth: (Rev. 3:7, ASV).
Here Christ possesses the key of David…but as we see in Matthew, He delegated some of this authority to Peter.
Keys of a Kingdom, in the ancient Middle East, always meant authority over that kingdom…we can not interpret the Bible outside the historical, Biblical, and cultural context.

Here’s another important Petrine passage:
15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
(Matt. 21:15-17 ASV).
Jesus tells Peter to ‘feed my sheep’ three times, and asks Peter if he loves the Lord more than the other disciples. Jesus wanted Peter to feed even the other apostles.

There are many more verses that support Peter’s primacy throughout the New Testament. For this I recommend you all to ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM and scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html.
 
For more papers defending that Peter was the head of the Church on earth, under Christ please see (several of these include quotes from the Church Fathers supporting the primacy of the Roman bishop).
catholicoutlook.com/pope.html (This sites section on the papacy…includes a number of links).

The Authority of the Pope: Part I catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

The Authority of the Pope: Part II
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

Origins of Peter as Pope
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Papal Infallibility
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Peter the Rock
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Peter’s Roman Residency
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

Was Peter in Rome?
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Peter’s Successors
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

(I’d like to thank Catholic Answers and Dave Armstrong in particular, for educating me on this subject).
 
Thank you all for the thorough responses and links to other websites. You gave me a lot to think about! In response to one of your posts, twf, I have two more questions:

First, you mention that Jesus conferred the authority to “bind and loose” first to Peter, and then to the other Apostles. I clearly see the logic behind the idea of Peter as leader (becuase he alone received the “keys to the kindgom of heaven”) and the other apostles as bishops (because they, too, received the power to “forgive and retain”). Like you, I’ve heard the idea that to give someone the “keys” to an area in that time period meant to grant them authority or jurisdiction over that area. Whille all of that makes sense, how do you explain the fact that in Matthew 18:18, Jesus grants Apostolic authority to a ‘generic’ group of believers who are gathered in his name, assuring them that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven?” Does this not imply that any group of believers who are guided by the Holy Spirit has the same authority as the Apostles? Using the same logic mentioned in your posts, a group of believers would actually have greater authority than the Apostles, because they recieved it before the Apostles. That would seem to support the “priesthood of all believers” theory, but I find such a notion hard to swallow. Any ideas?

Also, you use the Isaiah 22:20-23 passage to justify the existence of a Papal authority figure. While this passage certainly seems to suggest a figure of that nature, I’m still puzzled by the next two verses, 24-25, in which the Lord says, “the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.” If the Pope is the figure mentioned in 20-23, do 24 and 25 not imply that the he will be cut down, and all of his adherents “perish?” A bit disturbing, I must admit. Any ideas? Again, I think this verse is something best addressed to a priest, but I welcome any thoughts that you or anyone else have on the matter
Peace,
Chris
 
Thepeug -
Near the end of the Gospel of Matthew, I think chapter 24 or 25, Jesus is warning his disciples against following the example of the religious leaders of his time. He then gives a lengthy scathing criticism of those leaders.

The thing that strikes me and seems relevant here is his first words in that Chapter "The scribes and Pharisees have succeeded Moses as teachers so do everything and observe everything they say…

I believe he would say something similar about Popes, bishops and priests at various times throughout history.

Why not leave the church and join another or start your own? (I ask this in general I recognize you were already brought up in a different faith tradition)

Sticking with the one church with legitimate historical ties to the first Pope - even when the human leaders of the church greatly abuse their power - is the price of unity.

You mentioned your appreciation for unity and for the fact that unity is important in the Catholic Church.

Nothing Jesus said or wrote gives any Pope, bishop or priest the power to condemn another person to eternal damnation. But the fact is that any leader of a group has the power to place needless burdens on members of that group. Religious leaders of all faiths and all times have done so. Jesus criticized the leaders of his day for this very fault but he did not in any way suggest they should be replaced or ignored. Rather he said they should change.

Anyway - I offer this reflection for what its worth. I was born a Catholic and these thoughts have helped me remain one in good conscience.

-trogiah

“The reign of God is at hand”
 
Thepeug,
I just have a hard time believe that Jesus ever intended Peter to function as an infallible spiritual monarch who has the power to bind the conscience of all of his followers. Such an idea diminishes the roles of the other Apostles, and even the idea of Jesus as the Head of the Church.
Click to expand...
According to even Protestant Biblical scholarship, St. Peter was the chief apostle. Observe,

Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce comments –
“And what about the ‘keys of the kingdom’ ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim …(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.” (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)
See link below for more Protestant references to the “keys” and the authority it symbolized in Scripture.
bringyou.to/apologetics/a61.htm

God bless,

Dave
 
Thepeug,

There is a priesthood of all believers. There is also a high priest (Jesus Christ), and there is also a ministerial priesthood. And just as was the case in the 1st century, the government of Christ’s Church had a chief steward or prime minister (St. Peter). These three priesthoods and the chief steward of the ministers of the household of the Lord also existed in the OT chuch. A priesthood of all believers does not negate a ministerial priesthood. A chief steward does not negate the kingship of Christ.

Both the OT and the NT warn against the sin of Korah’s rebellion. Korah rebelled against the Divinely-ordained ministerial priests with the excuse that all are of the people of God are holy and that they ought not to be Lorded over by the ministerial priests. God punished this sinful rebellion. The NT also warned against this sin.

One cannot make themselves a ministerial priest. A ministerial priest is ordained by one who has an historical ordination that traces itself back to Jesus Christ (apostolic succession). To do otherwise is the sin of Korah’s rebellion, in my view.

See also The Priesthood Debate by James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.htm

God bless,

Dave
 
Regarding Matthew 18:18, I wouldn’t be so sure that this is a generic group of disciples. It is true that it says that ’the disciples’ came to him, but I believe this particular group was the 12. In some cases, the phrase ‘the disciples’ is used to refer to the 12; see for instance Mat. 8:25, 9:10 (arguably, I doubt all of his followers were eating together here), Mat. 10:1 (here qualified by the word twelve), Mat. 11:1 (again, twelve disciples is used), Mat. 13:10 (seems to be the core group), Mat. 13:36, Mat. 14:15, 22, Mat. 16:13, and others. (I believe these verses are referring to the core group of apostles). If we look through the Acts, and the writings of Paul, we see that the apostles have extraordinary authority over the Church. They clearly exercise the authority to ’bind and to loose’. They teach with authority, they impose disciplines, they give commands, and they make decisions for the Church. It is quite clear, from the NT, that not all believers were equal (as far as authority is concerned). As well, Paul says that few should be teachers, yet if all had binding and loosing authority, then we would all have the authority to teach. How would this work? Could we all impose disciplines on each other? It would be chaotic.

Using the same logic mentioned in your posts, a group of believers would actually have greater authority than the Apostles, because they recieved it before the Apostles.

Remember, it’s not just that Peter was given the authority before the rest, but that Christ spoke to him in the singular (while to the others, it was a general plural use). He said “whatever YOU bind on earth…”, and we can not underestimate the importance of the keys. Peter is the subject of that entire passage. Christ starts by pronouncing a blessing on him. And if you look at my links…there is other Biblical data as well that helps support our view collectively.

Also, you use the Isaiah 22:20-23 passage to justify the existence of a Papal authority figure. While this passage certainly seems to suggest a figure of that nature, I’m still puzzled by the next two verses, 24-25, in which the Lord says, “the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.” If the Pope is the figure mentioned in 20-23, do 24 and 25 not imply that the he will be cut down, and all of his adherents “perish?” A bit disturbing, I must admit. Any ideas? Again, I think this verse is something best addressed to a priest, but I welcome any thoughts that you or anyone else have on the matter
I’m sorry if I was unclear. I didn’t say that this passage is speaking of the pope directly, I was drawing your attention to the parallels. I was using this verse to demonstrate that ‘the keys to the kingdom’ (or key) refer to a king giving authority to a prime minister-type official over the kingdom. There are also some interesting parallels with the ‘opening and shutting’ of Isaiah 22 and the ‘binding and loosing’ of Matthew 16.

God bless,
Tyler
 
I would like to clear one thing up about icons. Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Christians do not think nor beleive that God, The Virgin Mary, or any of the Saints are incarnate in wood or paint just as the Roman Catholics do not believe that staues are a deity. The word icon means a window onto heaven. Venerating an icon is a way for us to keep focus on our prayers. If we are praying in front of an Icon to Mary or the Saints it keeps our focus to whom we are praying to for intercession on our behalf. Bowing before an icon is showing reverance to that particular person may it be God, Jesus, Mary or the Saints. Just as would bow to royality. Kissing an icon is showing Love to the person depicted there. As you would kiss your wife, mother or any other loved one. I hope this clears up some misconceptions on icons and statues. May the Holy Spirit guide you on your journey!

Glory Be to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!
 
Thank you all for your contributions; every argument made sense and helped to clear up some of my misunderstandings. Also, Diaconate, I have to admit that I understand the use of icons a lot more clearly now than a did a month ago, thanks to explanations like yours. I went to an ancient Orthodox church in Greece a few years ago, and didn’t understand prostration before icons at all. It looked like idol worship. Now, however, I understand to a much fuller extent to the special role that icons can play in Christian worship. I guess I’ll end this thread with just one more question: Itsjustdave, you mentioned the story of Korah’s rebellion. I’m interested in reading this story, but I’ve never heard of it before. Is it in the Bible, and if so, where might I find it? Thanks, everyone, for all of your help!

God bless,

Chris
 
Thepeug,
Itsjustdave, you mentioned the story of Korah’s rebellion. I’m interested in reading this story, but I’ve never heard of it before. Is it in the Bible, and if so, where might I find it?
Click to expand...
The account is provided in Numbers 16. Korah’s claim against Moses was as follows:
"They stood before Moses, and held an assembly against Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, “Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD’S congregation?”
Click to expand...
The NT warns us against this sin in Jude 11.

God bless,

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top