Gates of hell shall not prevail

[mercygate]

And yet most Roman Catholics will assert it as fact that his wife had died already. This only goes to show that most Roman Catholics don’t know their faith very well, not unlike many non-Roman-Catholics.

I have never heard it asserted that Peter’s wife had died. I have heard it *speculated. *Anybody can see just by looking at the New Testament that marriage was accepted, and so was celibacy for “elders.”

 

[mdcpensive1]

Hello PC Master: Here is part of one of your last posts of which two things come to mind:

Quote:

This can be seen in the Liturgy where many of the Jewish temple practices can be observed in the elements of the Mass.

So when God said he was going to create a new covenant that “will not be like the old one” (that’s from Jeremiah if I recall), he didn’t really mean that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeniac
I’ve also read theories that his wife was no longer alive, or else she would be looking after her own mother.

I’d love to see where you can find a credible historic source for that information. I’ll bet it’s tradition, not fact.

First is that God did establish a new Covenant that was unlike the Old. Very much different. Animal sacrifices were no longer needed and the Mosaic Law was not supreme anymore. Also, the priesthood was changed from the Levites back to the Order of Melchisadek. PC Master, I was talking about the ceremonial similarities in the new form of liturgy, not the Covenant itself. The early church was very Jewish . They went to the temple and observed many of the Jewish practices (dietary and circumcision for example) until their maturity in the faith was shown.

Lastly, your comment about tradition is not fact. Where do you think the Bible came from? It was not written from other Bibles, it was written from Sacred Tradition as passed down to us now.

mdcpensive1

 

[mercygate]

Hello PC Master: Here is part of one of your last posts of which two things come to mind:

Quote:

First is that God did establish a new Covenant that was unlike the Old. Very much different. Animal sacrifices were no longer needed and the Mosaic Law was not supreme anymore. Also, the priesthood was changed from the Levites back to the Order of Melchisadek. PC Master, I was talking about the ceremonial similarities in the new form of liturgy, not the Covenant itself. The early church was very Jewish . They went to the temple and observed many of the Jewish practices (dietary and circumcision for example) until their maturity in the faith was shown.

Lastly, your comment about tradition is not fact. Where do you think the Bible came from? It was not written from other Bibles, it was written from Sacred Tradition as passed down to us now.

mdcpensive1

Indeed. The Old Testament liturgical elements in the Mass also reflect the same elements in the worship in the Heavenly City in Revelation. Lamb. Altar. Incense. Holy, holy, holy. Christ has brought Heaven to earth in his person. And he has taken earth to Heaven in his person. At Mass we enter into that great mystery, which fulfills the “type and shadow” of worship of the Temple at Jerusalem. You cannot read the Epistle to the Hebrews without seeing the integration and transfiguration of the old into the new.

 

[mdcpensive1]

To Mercygate:

Thank you for your reply. Your insight into the heavenly Mass is excellent. You brought up points that shows the relationship between us and those of the Old Covenant. Thanks again.

mdcpensive1

 

[mercygate]

To Mercygate:

Thank you for your reply. Your insight into the heavenly Mass is excellent. You brought up points that shows the relationship between us and those of the Old Covenant. Thanks again.

mdcpensive1

:tiphat:

 

[PC_Master]

First is that God did establish a new Covenant that was unlike the Old. Very much different. Animal sacrifices were no longer needed and the Mosaic Law was not supreme anymore. Also, the priesthood was changed from the Levites back to the Order of Melchisadek. PC Master, I was talking about the ceremonial similarities in the new form of liturgy, not the Covenant itself. The early church was very Jewish . They went to the temple and observed many of the Jewish practices (dietary and circumcision for example) until their maturity in the faith was shown.

I see. So you can conclusively say that God absolutely didn’t mean that he would do away with a liturgical priesthood?

Lastly, your comment about tradition is not fact. Where do you think the Bible came from? It was not written from other Bibles, it was written from Sacred Tradition as passed down to us now.

And from that, you can say that the Roman Catholic Church is now the one and only purveyor of “Sacred Tradition”? What in the world gives it that right?

 

[Mordocai]

The gates of hell will not prevail.
The Church, by it’s nature of being Christ’s, and He being the Master Builder incapable of lying, is infallible simple because He builds it.
Satan is the father of lies and prevails if he succeeds in placing one lie inside the Church. The Church is the pillar foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), since this is so, then there is no room for it to be the pillar of any lie. For how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth and also hold up lies? Whose Church is it?
If there is so much division, it stands to reason that this is not God’s Will, and the Church continues to be the pillar and foundation of truth that Christ intended it to be, regardless of the lies satan convinces individuals of. Truth and lies do not coexist. The Church can not teach error because then it would cease to be the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Allow me to repeat that

The Church can not teach error because then it would cease to be the pillar and foundation of Truth.

May God Bless you and keep you close,
Mordocai

 

[YinYangMom]

What in the world gives it that right?

Not what.
Who.
He who created all things, who is love itself, gave it that right when He established the Church during His time here on earth as a human.

 

[mercygate]

I see. So you can conclusively say that God absolutely didn’t mean that he would do away with a liturgical priesthood?

We are a priestly people. The New Testament Church had priests (presbyter is the same word as priest). A priesthood is a liturgical office. A priesthood is entrusted with offering sacrifice. If you take off your anti-Catholic hat for an hour and read the Epistle to the Hebrews whilst wearing “liturgical” glasses, you will see that the whole premise of that letter is about the change from the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Then turn to Revelation (again, without your anti-liturgical hat) and see that the true worship of the Lamb is profoundly reflected in the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass – the Priesthood – is the one, same, unique sacrifice of Christ on the Cross eternally present to the Father.

And from that, you can say that the Roman Catholic Church is now the one and only purveyor of “Sacred Tradition”?

Other “true particular churches” – those with Apostolic Succession and authentic doctrine - generally, the Churches of the East also retain and “purvey” Sacred Tradition.

What in the world gives it that right?

The promise and commission of Jesus Christ himself. (Mt 28:19-20, Jn 16:13, Jn 17:11-12, and the promises to Peter)

 

[mdcpensive1]

Thank you Mercygate and Mordocai, your answers were very constructive and informative.
Just to clarify something for PC Master is case he is not aware, is that the Church believes that there is only one priest that is Christ. Other priests in the Church share in Christ’s priesthood and offer the sacrifice of Calvary back to the Father during every Mass by being in the place of Christ (in persona Christi).

mdcpensive1