How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[JRKH]

Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our.

Except for those **rogue books **RC call deutercanonical and Protestants call the apocrypha and the rewriting RC did to the ten commandments you have the same bible as we do!

Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our. God lied when He promised to preserve His word.
See Isaiah 40:8

Rogue Books?
Books that have been listed in every canon since the end of the 4th century?
Books determined to be Scripture by Spirit guided and protected Church council and reaffirmed many times by many councils before the Protestatn Reformation came along?
Books that were removed by the authority of one man in defiance of 1000 years of Church teaching?
You mean those books?

Peace
James

 

[kaycee]

Rogue Books?
Books that have been listed in every canon since the end of the 4th century?
Books determined to be Scripture by Spirit guided and protected Church council and reaffirmed many times by many councils before the Protestatn Reformation came along?
Books that were removed by the authority of one man in defiance of 1000 years of Church teaching?
You mean those books?

Peace
James

Jerome and most of the learned Dr.s of the Church would agree with Luther on the Deut’s.

 

[mercygate]

I have always read that Luther did believe in all 7 sacraments. I will try to find information as to whether or not he wanted to retain confession. Are you saying that he fought against having confession taken away and lost? That would mean he wanted to retain confession, but the other reformers didn’t, right?

Ask me something I know! I believe in his tract Von der Beichte he rejects the idea that confession should be compulsory but affirms that it is a good thing if practiced voluntarily. And to answer your question, it is my understanding that he wanted to “keep it” but was outvoted by others. I do not know who, how, or when.

 

[JRKH]

Jerome and most of the learned Dr.s of the Church would agree with Luther on the Deut’s.

St Augustine and all of the Church Councils from Nicea to Trent agreed with the Holy Spirit on the Deuts.

Peace
James

 

[Always_For_Him]

Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our.

Except for those rogue books RC call deutercanonical and Protestants call the apocrypha and the rewriting RC did to the ten commandments you have the same bible as we do!

Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our. God lied when He promised to preserve His word.
See Isaiah 40:8

Rogue Books? Is that what your Church has taught you? You couldn’t have tried to look at the historical evidence of that yourself, because if you had, you would have found that to be eroneous teaching. The Catholic Bible is the original Bible. It is factual and historical knowledge that Luther changed things because he thought he knew better and because he didn’t like certain teachings and uncontested inspired books. He also admitted that he added the word alone to create Sola Scripture. He admitted that alone was not originally there.

In 1520, Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism of 39 books as the OT canon. He opposed books of the Christian OT because they taught doctrines he did not like, such as prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:42-46). The Councl of Trent in 1546AD dogmatically reaffirmed the 73-book canon. The Catholics Church did not ADD seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent. We had always had 46 books in our OT. Martin Luther actually subtracted seven books to better promote his own novel opinions. Trent merely reaffirmed the same canon the Catholic Church had established almost 1200 years previoiusly, and condemned anyone who sought to tamper with Sacred Scripture. Which OT would you rather use - the OT used by the apostles and other NT writers and the early Church, or the OT used by the later jews who rejected Jesus Christ. If your bible includes the seven books, you follow the apostles and the other NT writers and the early Church. If your Bible omits the seven books, you follow the non-Christian rabbis and Martin Luther - a man whose view of Sacred Scripture allowed him to deliberately add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28. Luther’s private judgment was his only justificatoin for adding the word “alone.” “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unneccessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are the one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.”
Luther also said, “I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice. It is noteworthy here that Luther shows his private judgement here by including Ester (an UNDISPUTED canonical book) under the same condemnation as 2 Maccebees…” (The Canon of Scripture, 101)

Contrary to what you believe and what you have been taught, the Catholic Church has NOT changed the Bible. It is the same NT. Please show me where it is different? Show me in all of our earliest writings from the ECF’s through to 397AD when the Bible was written, a different interpretation of scripture from what we believe, practice and interpret now. What exactly are the things we have changed? Or is this just a blanket believe that you have been taught all of your life? It is Protestants and their 35,000 denominations that continue to this DAY to change the meaning of scripture, costantly re-inventing interpretation.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Sorry, MG, I just couldn’t get that to fit in one small paragraph!!!

 

[mercygate]

Sorry, MG, I just couldn’t get that to fit in one small paragraph!!!

But you used paragraphs! What a difference!

 

[MIZER]

I think when Mercy Gate called the deut’s the rogue books, she was being facetious.

Always for Him,

Luther started out merely wishing to reform the Catholic Church. He never intended to break away, he never intended to start a new denomination. If you study his life, you will find that his theology changed dramatically during it’s course.

The more you study of protestantism and the many ensuing denominations of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, the more frustrated you will become. I don’t recommend it. It will make you want to pull your hair out (it you have hair) and scream yourself silly at the many contradictions, lack of Biblical/Historical support, down right hypocrisy and general error. Also, you will come up with literally thousands of questions to which there are no logical answers. “Where in the Bible does it say that?” will become a phrase you will say in your sleep.

Protestants/fundamentalists will not, they can not let the Bible mean what it says in many, many verses. Everything has to be “interpreted” through their system of private interpretation and made to mean what they already believe. The Bible doesn’t directly say anything about most of what they believe. It’s amazing, really. Where in the Bible does it mention “altar call?” Notice their churches have no altar, by definition, because they have no real sacrifice. Some employ “altar boys, (girls)” but again, they have no altar. We all know that the word “alone” never appears in the NT, following the word faith except in James 2:24 where it says, “and not by faith alone.” No where does the Bible tell us we have “assurance” of salvation, in fact it talks a lot about how we are to live our lives in hope. What do non-C’s have to “hope” for? They have assurance. For them it’s a done deal, no matter what the do or think as long as they where “once saved.” The Bible never claims for itself to be the final “authority” of man. In fact this one even “goes against,” the dictionary as an inanimate object, ie: a book, can not be “an authority.” Although it can be authoritative in the hands of a person, the Bible itself can neither make a decision nor enforce a law. So by definition, it can’t be an authority. They, non-C’s always must leave out some pertinent information. In this case it is the word “figure.” They have no “authority figure” and so in their world, anything goes.

Notice that the non-C’s are no where in sight on either of these two threads you have been engaged with them on, ever since you started asking questions. That’s because they can’t answer logically. In an oral debate, if you ask a question they will change the subject by asking you another question on a different topic. The minute you start pressing for answers they will end the debate, usually with, "well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That’s it. And it is most exasperating.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as evangenlization unless you are talking to a non-believer. Believer’s from other denominations must come to the truth through a desire for the truth, on their own. They must recognize in their own mind and senses that something isn’t right in their own system of faith and seek for themselves the answers to these questions. There is nothing we can do or say to lead them to that point. Only the movement of the Holy Spirit can do that, and they must be willing to follow that movement.

So, the only thing we can really do is pray for them and as the Bible says, be ready with an explanation if someone asks us the reason for our hope.

There has been some truly incredible information, I believe on this thread, about the words in Matt 16 and it doesn’t appear to have made a difference for any of the non-C’s. They just continue to argue their position, never answering a question, just throwing more questions at the Catholics on the board. Kind of sad, don’t you think?

Pray for them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Jerome and most of the learned Dr.s of the Church would agree with Luther on the Deut’s.

Good thing St. Jerome submitted his personal interpretation to the Authority of Pope St. Damasius II, and put the Deutero’s in his Canon.

 

[PC_Master]

If Jesus’ Authority wasn’t passed from Peter to subsequent Popes, or magisterium, why is it that anyone believes in the Bible?

Because scripture doesn’t depend on the authority of a pope. God’s divine actions in preserving his truths (in scripture and other sources) need no pope, nor an official “magisterium”, though the leaders of the church throughout the first few centuries were certainly involved.

Since non-C’s aren’t ordained in any lineage from Peter, and since non-C’s believe that Jesus’ authority and power stopped with Peter (or that Peter never had any authority or power), where do they derive their power or authority to perform baptisms, perform marriage ceremonies, or to confirm (some do that) in the name of God or through God?

As most protestants don’t hold to the concept of “original sin”, there’s no problem. Also, marriage is a union between two people that need not a priest or other person (though it certainly has become customary in our culture to do so).

Confirmations and dedications, and other things of that sort, are seen as totally symbolic in nature, professing to others a desired path for a young believer (either by parents or by the individual themselves, depending on age).

Mere mortals and lay people don’t have any power or authority to perform these duties do they? Is it just words, or do they believe that God is working through them?

God works through all in different ways. Most of the notably God-used figures in scripture weren’t priests, after all. Do you believe God cannot use “mere mortals and lay people”?

The truth is that no man, even if your concept of the priesthood were valid, has the power to do anything supernatural unless God grants that power. When the apostles and others throughout scripture worked miracles, it was God that either (a) did the miracle working at the request of the man or (b) gave the power to the man to perform the miracle. Only Christ has ever done something of his own accord in this regard, through his divine power.

If they believe that God is working through them, then did God give them the power or authority to perform those functions?

What makes you think that he intended there to be a group of people with one set of “powers” that didn’t apply to the rest of the people?

I didn’t mention the Consecration of the Eucharist, the forgivness of sins in Reconciliation because I don’t think they believe in those sacraments. Am I correct on that?

“The Lord’s Supper”, as it’s frequently called by Protestants, is seen almost always as a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.

Confession is usually seen as something beneficial to the man (when practiced voluntarily), but not as a necessity, particularly in regards to confessing to clergy of some sort. Additionally, such confession is not accompanied by forgiveness on any divine level – only God will forgive, not any man.

Do Non-C’s annoint the sick? If they do, where do they get the power an authority to do that?

Why don’t they?

When Protestant ministers are ordained, is it through some type of power? Do they receive some kind of power or authority when ordained?

No – it’s a recognition of good spiritual standing (frequently from the congregation which they will serve) and as a symbol of support in their new ministry.

 

[kaycee]

Good thing St. Jerome submitted his personal interpretation to the Authority of Pope St. Damasius II, and put the Deutero’s in his Canon.

(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. **That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” **

 

[PC_Master]

There has been some truly incredible information, I believe on this thread, about the words in Matt 16 and it doesn’t appear to have made a difference for any of the non-C’s. They just continue to argue their position, never answering a question, just throwing more questions at the Catholics on the board. Kind of sad, don’t you think?

Pray for them.

Your prayers are always appreciated (if offered sincerely), however you seem to be of the opinion that accepting that Matthew 16:18 was speaking about Peter necessitates acceptance of the papacy, and thus, the whole of the RCC. The very point of this thread, to begin with, was about how it’s possible to accept Peter as the rock of the church without coming to that conclusion.

Answers were provided (including at least one very good one by Edwin) to satisfy this question. It’s entirely possible, plausible, and reasonable to believe Peter is the rock while still rejecting the papacy and the RCC. How? Simple – Peter’s supposedly unique roll was unique to Peter. There’s no reason to believe that it passed on to others, nor that the role of being the rock of the church involved hierarchal authority over the church.

If Christ intended to build his church on Peter, that doesn’t necessarily put Peter in a position of authority. By putting Peter there, it’s almost like saying Peter did the building of the church (by making decisions, giving instructions, etc). It also doesn’t make some of the successors of Peter fill this same roll.

Neither does accepting this interpretation of Matthew 16:18 require any assumption of papal infallibility, meaning that later supposed popes could have strayed from the truth.

Moreover, even if Matthew 16:18 was speaking specifically to Peter about Peter, the context (the rest of the gospels, Paul’s writings, Peter’s own writings) simply doesn’t allow for a hierarchal church to be established, nor for the concept that Christ intended any man to be head over the faithful.

The pope calls himself the “servant of the servants of God”, but I think about Christ’s own example – he washed feet. The apostles argued over who the greatest was, and yet Christ said nothing about Peter? No, it just doesn’t fit. Context, context, context.

 

[JRKH]

I think when Mercy Gate called the deut’s the rogue books, she was being facetious.

Actually it was Micas, and not Mercygate who coined the term “Rogue Books” here on this thread.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Actually it was Micas, and not Mercygate who coined the term “Rogue Books” here on this thread.

Peace
James

:tiphat: Thank you.

 

[JRKH]

(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. **That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” **

Kaycee,
Nicely put and thank you for using a catholic source for your information.

You will note, I hope, that each of the references above were from individuals and not from Church Councils. In fact, I underlined the point above that Jerome’s “Judgement” was just that - His personal opinion. Each of the persons noted above held the same personal opinion.
However the critical point here is that Each of these most learned and revered men of the Church submitted their personal opinion to the Authority of the Church’s decision in council.

The issue only became acute because of Luther’s obstinate heresy of Bible alone and Faith Alone.

Authority really becomes is the core issue. Whether we are humble enough to submit ourselves to the Authority which Christ gave us which is the Church.

Peace
James

 

[qui_est_ce]

(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. **That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” **

Thank you kaycee. The fact that there was controversy does not negate the fact that the Catholic Church has included the Deut’s in her approved versions since at least the time of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Canon. Many Approved non-Latin Bibles were in existence as well before the Council of Trent. Because Martin Luther specifically challenged and declared the Deut’s as uninspired, the Catholic Church had to officially declare the Deut’s as inspired.

 

[Nickkname]

Catholic1seeks,

You’re assuming that faith is a human power. It is not. Faith is a God-given gift. For example, I believe that Mohammed was visited by an angel while he was in the cave. Dose that mean I’ll convert to Islam, or dose it make me a Muslim? No. It’s just my personal belief. My faith, however, is Catholic; it is God’s gift to me.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Kaycee,
Nicely put and thank you for using a catholic source for your information.
Peace
James

You beat me!

 

[MIZER]

Posted by PC Master:

Because scripture doesn’t depend on the authority of a pope. God’s divine actions in preserving his truths (in scripture and other sources) need no pope, nor an official “magisterium”, though the leaders of the church throughout the first few centuries were certainly involved.

QUOTE]

At least you give us part of reality when you admit that the church of the first few centuries were certainly involved.

The canonization of the NT certainly did depend on the authority of a pope. To deny this is to deny reality. This authority was given the pope by Christ himself. It is His own authority given Him by HIM who sent Him. * I am*, gave Jesus the authority who then gave that authority to Peter and to the chair of Peter and to every man who come to possess that seat.

PC Master, will you answer a question? How do you interpret Matthew 23:2?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Peter’s supposedly unique roll was unique to Peter. There’s no reason to believe that it passed on to others, nor that the role of being the rock of the church involved hierarchal authority over the church.

If Christ intended to build his church on Peter, that doesn’t necessarily put Peter in a position of authority. By putting Peter there, it’s almost like saying Peter did the building of the church (by making decisions, giving instructions, etc). It also doesn’t make some of the successors of Peter fill this same roll.

Neither does it negate Papal Succession. In Acts we see that succession was necessary in that Matthias was chosen as successor of Judas. Why?

Why did Apostles need helpers (Deacons) like Stephen. Why wasn’t Steven an Apostle?

Neither does accepting this interpretation of Matthew 16:18 require any assumption of papal infallibility, meaning that later supposed popes could have strayed from the truth.

Yet Christ promised the Advocate to Peter, the Rock, the Foundation, of the Church, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.

Moreover, even if Matthew 16:18 was speaking specifically to Peter about Peter, the context (the rest of the gospels, Paul’s writings, Peter’s own writings) simply doesn’t allow for a hierarchal church to be established, nor for the concept that Christ intended any man to be head over the faithful.

Yet we are told to take disputes “to the Church” if they cannot be resolved among believers. If the Church is just the community of believers, why would it not have stopped here?

Matthew 18:16-17
*
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. *

Talk about context, look what follows:

Matthew 18:18:
** 18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[c] loosed in heaven.*

The pope calls himself the “servant of the servants of God”, but I think about Christ’s own example – he washed feet.

Yes, following the example of Christ.

The apostles argued over who the greatest was, and yet Christ said nothing about Peter?

Because he wasn’t. Nobody is better than anybody else.

No, it just doesn’t fit.** Context, context, context. **

“You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.” It’s very simple!*