God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

[believers]

The first infallible Papal pronouncement.

Thus, Jesus acknowledges the infallibility of Peter, our first Pope.

Proof of fallibility in your churchs interpretation

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So much for papal infallibility.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[jmcrae]

Proof of fallibility in your churchs interpretation

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Thus showing us that the Pope is not actually God, himself, but is only infallible when he is speaking God’s words; not when giving his personal opinions.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Proof of fallibility in your churchs interpretation

Mat 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So much for papal infallibility.

Rom 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Hmm, and I suppose you have proof of YOUR infallible interpretation of these quotes? Really, if you want your own opinions to be believed you should stop quoting Romans and reminding us of how far you are from being perfect

That being said, I would still rather believe that an 80 year old man (Happy Belated Birthday, Your Holiness) who has committed his entire life to studying theology is better capable of infallibly interpreting scripture than all the Protestants on this board put together could possibly be.

Whats really puzzling is that Protestants allow for their own revelation from the Holy Spirit, but somehow disqualify the Pope from this seemingly prevalent miracle

 

[Janet_S]

To distinguish Peter as Petros and Jesus as Petra.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ.

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Of course there are places in the Bible where Jesus is called a rock, but what is the meaning specifically in these verses:

*Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *

Of course, you realize Jesus was speaking Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, He would have said “you are Cephas/Kepha and upon this Cephas/Kepha I will build my Church.” In Aramaic, there is no distinction between gigantic rock and pebble. Peter is the rock.

Do you also realize that Petros is a masculine noun while Petra is feminine. It wouldn’t have been appropriate to call Simon Peter by a feminine name in Greek, so the masculine Petros was used.

But as for the context of the verses and what was said, it appears you believe the reason why Jesus changed Simon’s name to Cephas/Petros was so Peter would know that he is an insignificant pebble.

In the above verses (Matthew 16:17-19), Jesus first says Peter is blessed; second (according to your interpretation) says Peter is an insignificant pebble; third says He is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Even though the first and third statements are a blessing and an honor respectively, are you claiming the second statement is a put down?

Are you saying the the purpose of the name change (Simon to Cephas) is to demean Peter?

 

[stignatius]

To distinguish Peter as Petros and Jesus as Petra.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ.

sigh… you really should read the articles on the site that hosts these forums, they’re very helpful

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

[believers]

Hmm, and I suppose you have proof of YOUR infallible interpretation of these quotes? Really, if you want your own opinions to be believed you should stop quoting Romans and reminding us of how far you are from being perfect

That being said, I would still rather believe that an 80 year old man (Happy Belated Birthday, Your Holiness) who has committed his entire life to studying theology is better capable of infallibly interpreting scripture than all the Protestants on this board put together could possibly be.

Whats really puzzling is that Protestants allow for their own revelation from the Holy Spirit, but somehow disqualify the Pope from this seemingly prevalent miracle

Rom 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

1Cr 8:2
And** if any man think that he knoweth any thing**, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Rev 15:4
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

 

[believers]

sigh… you really should read the articles on the site that hosts these forums, they’re very helpful

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

You really should read the bible. It would tell you how there’s no way Peter could have been the pope. While Paul was running around preaching the Gospel to the gentiles, Peter didn’t know how to act towards the gentiles for 14 years until Paul straightened him out. Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. In case you don’t know, the Christian church was called out of the gentiles. Paul is the masterbuilder of the Chistian faith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Rom 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

That includes you. Second the Pope does not consider himself highly of himself. His title in fact is “The servant of the servants of God.” He did not even want to be the Pope… but God had other plans.

1Cr 8:2
And** if any man think that he knoweth any thing**, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

And you use this because?

Rev 15:4
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

5 And after these things I looked; and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:

 

[believers]

Thus showing us that the Pope is not actually God, himself, but is only infallible when he is speaking God’s words; not when giving his personal opinions.

You mean you actually thought he was God? And, you need scripture to tell you that he isn’t? The Word of God says let God be true and every man a liar. That includes your pope.

 

[stignatius]

You really should read the bible. It would tell you how there’s no way Peter could have been the pope. While Paul was running around preaching the Gospel to the gentiles, Peter didn’t know how to act towards the gentiles for 14 years until Paul straightened him out. Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. In case you don’t know, the Christian church was called out of the gentiles. Paul is the masterbuilder of the Chistian faith.

First of all, this was about Peter being the rock the Church was built on, but topic changes are always fun The Apostles and those they “laid hands on” were the first leaders of the Church. Peter is the leader of the Apostles. Every time they are listed out, it starts with Peter. Peter always talks for the Apostles. After Pentecost, he was the first to preach to the crowds. In fact, in Acts, you don’t hear any other apostle talking for a suprisingly long time. Peter was the first to accept Gentiles into the Church. When God wanted the Gentiles converted, he gave Peter the vision. When the Church were disputing the topic at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter stood up and said Gentiles should be accepted into the Church, which ended all disputes.

Now I’m going to leave for a while, because I’m starting to feel non-Christian…

 

[believers]

I’m not usually the type to pile on when somebody is already engaged in a debate, but I think this particular quote deserves an answer.

First, this quote is USUALLY only used to disprove the Mary ever virgin doctrine, not the Pope, but whatever.

The big question is, what is Paul trying to say? Obviously he assumes his readers KNOW what scripture he is referring to (hint, it ain’t in the NT) and understand its full context. Just to save some time, he is referring to Psalm 14

14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.

4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?

5 There they are in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
6 You would shame the plans of the poor,
but the Lord is his refuge.

7 Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.

But wait a minute…what is that in verse 5? Who could be righteous if NOT EVEN ONE has done good? Perhaps we are looking at two different groups here?

What is your interpretation?

God Bless

Did you know that the sign of the cross is actually the sign of the upside down cross?

 

[believers]

First of all, this was about Peter being the rock the Church was built on, but topic changes are always fun The Apostles and those they “laid hands on” were the first leaders of the Church. Peter is the leader of the Apostles. Every time they are listed out, it starts with Peter. Peter always talks for the Apostles. After Pentecost, he was the first to preach to the crowds. In fact, in Acts, you don’t hear any other apostle talking for a suprisingly long time. Peter was the first to accept Gentiles into the Church. When God wanted the Gentiles converted, he gave Peter the vision. When the Church were disputing the topic at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter stood up and said Gentiles should be accepted into the Church, which ended all disputes.

Now I’m going to leave for a while, because I’m starting to feel non-Christian…

Nope, Jesus gave Paul the revelation while he was on his way to damascus. The Gospel to the gentiles was committed to Paul, not Peter.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Did you know that the sign of the cross is actually the sign of the upside down cross?

I heard that one before but the Sign of the Cross invokes Baptism promise. “In the Name of the Father, And of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit.”

It isn’t upside down. It forms a T.

 

[Robert902]

I am an 18 yo highschool and even I do not dare question the authority of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.

According to Eph 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.” So according to God’s word, we are commanded to “test” the authority of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. What is the standard for that test? It can only be the Bible, because that’s where the command is found…

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Mannyfit75]

According to Eph 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.” So according to God’s word, we are commanded to “test” the authority of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. What is the standard for that test? It can only be the Bible, because that’s where the command is found…

God Bless,
Robert

Actually it isn’t the Bible. 1 Tim 3:15 states, the Pillar of Bulwark of the Truth is the Church.

Second, Jesus said disagrees with you for He said,

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen** I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.** 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20** For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them**–Matthew 18: 15-20.

 

[Mannyfit75]

For Believers,

Sign of the Cross

This explains the how Christian this is.

 

[guanophore]

What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Where they given only to Simon Peter? No, Jesus gives them to those who make the same confession made by Peter, those who know Christ as saviour.
The keys were the badge of authority of the office of the scribes, who interpreted the Scriptures to the people (see Neh. 8:2-8). Every Christian today has the Scriptures and, therefore the keys. If we withold the Word, we “bind on earth”; if we give the Word, we “loose on earth”. No man or individual church has the keys-to the exclusion of all other believers If you are a child of God, you have the keys as well as any person (of God) has the keys.

God Bless,
Robert

This is one of those private interpretations in which you have previously said you did not agree, Robert. You have made up your own definition to what the keys of heaven are, and you have added that the authority given to Peter is about the Word.

You also misunderstand that Peter does not hold the keys "to the exclusion " of all other believers, but on behalf of them all. As an appointed shepherd, his role is to care for and to feed the sheep, guide them, and protect them from predators. It is a sadness that you do not recognize and appreciate this gift of shepherding that God has given to you. It amounds to an abridged gospel.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Robert902:

What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Where they given only to Simon Peter? No, Jesus gives them to those who make the same confession made by Peter, those who know Christ as saviour.
The keys were the badge of authority of the office of the scribes, who interpreted the Scriptures to the people (see Neh. 8:2-8). Every Christian today has the Scriptures and, therefore the keys. If we withold the Word, we “bind on earth”; if we give the Word, we “loose on earth”. No man or individual church has the keys-to the exclusion of all other believers If you are a child of God, you have the keys as well as any person (of God) has the keys.

There are fallacies in your private intepretation. To consider that we all inherited the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose, would give us the infallible ability to declare all things concerning moral and faith binding.

Yet, there are people (liberal Christians) today who admit that masterbation is not a sin, or that homosexual isn’t really a grave sin. My friend, many Protestant ministers do not declare themselves** infallible but do admit they are fallible**.

Only one Church declares to be infallible regarding faith and moral and that is the Magisterial Authority of the Church, the Bishops in union with the Pope.

In a way, your intepretations makes you a type of Pope himself for you declare that we inherited the keys. Even Matthew 16:18 only address one person who Jesus gave the keys to. In this passage Jesus gave the keys to Peter only. Not his Apostles. It was not until in Matthew 19 that the rest of the Apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose, yet none of them were given the keys of heaven.

 

[mdstanzel]

Read Isaiah 22. Scott Hahn had something very interesting to say about “the keys”. He argues a very convincing argument reflecting that Peter does have primacy. It helps me. I’m still going through the study and plan to review it several times before I start compiling my thoughts on the subject.
Read Isaiah 22:1-25

Particularly
"22:21 And I will clothe 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.

22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. "
from the KJV, you know the authorized version handed down by Jesus to the Apostles.

 

[Sixtus]

According to Eph 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.” So according to God’s word, we are commanded to “test” the authority of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH.

A ‘thing’ is an inanimate object. The Chruch is not a ‘thing’, it is a living organism.

Eph does not say ‘test all living organisms’ no, it does not say that