Incarnation and Authority

[petra]

I found your choice of words (underlined) very interesting.
Rev. 1:16 “from His mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword”.
Only one of many Scripture passages that call the words of God a “sword”.

That “edge of steel” that seems cold, hard and strange to you is reassuring to a Catholic; a source of peace that eliminates the anxiety of wondering whether our reasoning is right or not.

Nita

Good point, Nita!

 

[petra]

You raise a good point, once again. I agree that metaphors must be carefully used. Too many points get dismissed on the ground that the other side is incorrectly using metaphor, such as in John 6 and here whether, or how much, the image of the church as the body of Christ is metaphorical.

My point was that metaphors are good at drawing certain parallels, but only the parallels intended. For example, when we read that we are made in God’s image, that does not mean that He has facial features like we do. You drew an inapprpriate parallel when you said, “If the Church is Christ’s body, then it is Christ incarnate.” If I’m not mistaken, we are still talking about how authority is derived from the Incarnation. Whatever authority the Church has is derivative of Christ.

Not sure what your point is regarding John 6. Sometimes things are intended literally and sometimes figuratively. The context does not support a figurative interpretation of John 6, if that is what you are implying.

I think a primary distinction between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants argue for a direct revelation to each believer of God’s truth, by God, rather than truth being mediated by the church. In that sense I do not think you can support your argument by regarding the Body of Christ solely as metaphorical - you must argue for some reality. I’m using the word “reality” sloppily, but it makes the point.

Truth is not mediated by the Church, only preserved. The Truth comes from incarnation of the Son, the Word.

Agreed. Paul warns repeatedly against them. But it should be noted that in Ephesians 6 the armor and weaponry is all offensive - there is nothing covering the back. The church is an army at war, on the offense; the bride of Christ wears combat boots; the Christian is to be fearless, loving his life not unto death, and overcoming the evil one, and none of these things are metaphors without application or real meaning.

The use of the word “but” seems that you are attempting to correct me on the point that the Church is in an offensive position. If you reread my post, you’ll see that I agree that the Church prevailing against the gates of hell is a mode of offense. Why is the Church storming the gates of hell? To rescue souls. This cannot be accomplished if the Church presents and teaches doctrine inconsistently and inaccurately. Your interpretations supports infallibility.

If there is infallible leadership on earth, I am interested. But from where I sit, the inerrant Word coupled with the power of the Holy Spirit in grace poured out is more than abundant, is overflowing, immeasurable, inexhaustible, dwarfing any human leadership.

Peter’s primacy was one of rebuke, rebuked by Jesus on one side and Paul on the other, as well as in preaching and reaching out to the Gentiles although called to the Jews. Whatever strength was in Peter was not Peter, it was Christ, and so often it seems the Church puts its strength in itself rather than in Christ. Without Christ it is nothing.

You misunderstand. The Church’s preservation of correct theologial and moral doctrine has nothing to do with human leadership. You have no trouble believing that the Holy Spirit moved through the authors of Scripture to ensure that those writings were inerrant. The same Holy Spirit moves through mere men (the Pope in particular and the Magesterium in a larger scope) to ensure that the Truth is preserved and false doctrine is never adopted. The Holy Spirit’s grace is superabundant in this ministry. I know you want really badly to believe that the Catholic Church diminishes God and exalts man, but it is quite the opposite, my friend. Quite the opposite.

 

[petra]

That is one of the things that fascinates me about Catholicism. Without Christ it is nothing. The priest says words, and God acts. The priest has little to do with it. Whether in absolution or baptism or communion or marriage, the secret of the priest I think is that he basically is a bystander. The Church does little, and what it does is dangerous. The Church is best when it is at its weakest, doing nothing, because then its only strength is its only strength, and that is Christ. All but Christ is folly, where the Church seems to go whenever it forgets this.

Of course that apart from Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5) and that God’s power is perfected in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). No disagreement on that! However, your other comments are downright venomous and without basis. Dangerous? Examples please.

Somehow this ties into the Incarnation. But as I read the doctrine concerning infallibility, it basically is a promise that the Pope won’t mess things up too badly. This is on par with Douglas Adam’ s comment about earth: mostly harmless. But I get nervous when the Church tries to be something it isn’t. And it keeps trying, and making claims about all sorts of interesting things, often with good reason. But the Lord’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, but His are higher, more subtle and better. It is good to think His thoughts after Him, and I think it pleases Him, but we also need a sense of humor about ourselves and our abilities. Do I laugh at the Church? No, but sometimes I think the saints up on high must be rolling on the floor with laughter. At us. And so the idea of accepting infallibility comes to me with difficulty.

This is psychobabble. What does this mean? This is all your personal speculation.

You obviously have some anger toward the Church. What is really the issue here? It can’t be based on objective disagreement, because you do not have an entirely objective foundation for your faith. What is really eating you?

You haven’t demonstrated how the mind of God reliably comes to us in the 21st Century. The best you can offer is personal interpretation of the Scripture, and by your own admission, Christians muddle through life as best as they can and everything will be sorted out in the end. Your interpetation of Matt. 16:18 that the Church is in an offensive mode completely supports the necessity for doctrinal infallibility. You have not explained why Jesus gave Peter the keys if He did not intend for Peter to serve as a literal leader for the Church in Jesus’ absence. You have not explained how you get from the Incarnation (the earthly life of Christ) to Prima Scriptura.

In contrast, I have shown that solid links exist between the Incarnation of Christ, the necessity of infallibility of the Church, and Christ’s intent that the Church be led with the authority of the keys. This authority is essential if we are to trust our modern Bible as scripture. The infallibility of the Catholic Church is the only basis for trusting the Scripture as Scripture. If that is still not clear to you, let me know and I review it once again.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Truthstalker;

On the dogma of papal infallibility: Vatican I (1869-1870) defined it as follows:

“Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the Universal Church by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Blessed Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” (italics mine)

Vatican II in *Lumen Gentium *elaborated upon and promulgated this dogma, stating that the pope is infallible in only the following circumstances:

1. When he speaks ex cathedra (speaking officially as the supreme pastor of the Church). He is NOT infallible when he speaks in less solemn ways;
2. When he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals. He is NOT infallible on matters of discipline (fasting before communion; changes in the expression of the Faith);
3. When he speaks of faith and morals, which includes the whole content of divine revelation, or as St Paul puts it, “the deposit of faith;”
4. When he intends to bind the whole Church to a common belief. Here, the Pope’s intention of permanently binding the faithful must be clear from the context, such as Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854).

Note: the infallible primacy was not given to St Peter until after the Resurrection. Further, the dogma of infallibility does not grant a pope immunity from errors of judgment or committing mortal sin, this would be impeccability.

It also does not mean that the Pope knows everything that there is to know in the world, either. Witness Pope Urban VIII’s statement in a decree, as a bishop of a congregation*,* condemning Galileo’s support of the Copernican theory.

In the only two instances of the exercise of the dogma of papal infallibility, both Popes met with their respective college of bishops (some of whom were cardinals too) to ensure that the doctrine under consideration is an accurate definition of what the Church has always believed and taught, a genuine part of Sacred Tradition.

This is it, there is no cavalier attitude towards what is held to be dogma. Catholics have not changed their beliefs since the organization of the Church at Pentacost in approximately 33 AD.

We understand the historical context of St Paul addressing issues concerning Gentiles and Jews becoming followers of Christ. We do no find new doctrines in writings which have been prayed over, discussed, written about and taught, orally, for centuries before the invention of the printing press.

The Incarnation is the key to the Cycle of Redemption. It is not a point of philosophical turning for Catholics and Protestants.

 

[Truthstalker]

There’s a lot here to mull over here and it will take some time.

Venom? I wasn’t thinking of it at the time…Some self-examination may be due.

Examples? Julius II, the sacking of Constantinople, the judgement against Galileo, innumerable times when the Church has acted contrary to instruction. I should have been more careful in my wording, yes, but I also need to look at my meaning.

 

[onenow1]

There’s a lot here to mull over here and it will take some time.

Venom? I wasn’t thinking of it at the time…Some self-examination may be due.

Examples? Julius II, the sacking of Constantinople, the judgement against Galileo, innumerable times when the Church has acted contrary to instruction. I should have been more careful in my wording, yes, but I also need to look at my meaning.

 

[petra]

There’s a lot here to mull over here and it will take some time.

Venom? I wasn’t thinking of it at the time…Some self-examination may be due.

Examples? Julius II, the sacking of Constantinople, the judgement against Galileo, innumerable times when the Church has acted contrary to instruction. I should have been more careful in my wording, yes, but I also need to look at my meaning.

The concept of infallibility is very specific. The Catholic Church is only infallible in its official teaching of doctrine and morals. This does not mean that individuals (the Pope included) are sinless or always make good decisions. It does not mean that practices always align with infallible teaching. The official teaching capacity is protected by the Holy Spirit simply because God wills that it be so to ensure that divine revelation (incarnate in Christ) would sustain the Church to the end of the age.

Outside of these specific parameters, throughout the history of the Church age there have been individuals who have erred and sinned, sometimes grieviously. We can call a spade a spade and condemn wrong actions—especially since any kind of immorality violates infallible teaching of the Church.

But let’s get some perspective here. You asserted that the Catholic Church is dangerous. Firstly, some accusations against the Church are based on misinformation. Galileo was not condemned for proclaiming a scientific theory that conflicted with the Church’s established view of the cosmos. The Church is not in the business of defining scientific theories at all. Galileo got in trouble because he insisted that Scripture was errant. THAT the Church wouldn’t tolerate. (Thankfully so, right?) Moreover, Galileo was not tortured or mistreated. You can read more about it here.

Secondly, although some actions taken by individuals are truly indefensible, a categorical judgment that the Catholic Church is dangerous is inappropriate. Given that the United States has had immoral and corrupt leaders and has, on occasion, implemented policies that have hurt people, is a condemnation of our form of government called for? Is a condemnation of the Office of President called for? The fact that there are flawed people does not mean that the system is necessarily flawed or dangerous.

In your previous post, you said the Catholic Church is at its best when it does nothing. So was the Church at its worst and most dangerous when fighting the Arian heresy and when it infallibly defined the doctrine of the Trinity? Was the Church at its worst and most dangerous when it defined the biblical canon that you now hold as your primary source of revelation?

 

[Truthstalker]

This is turning into a digression. I meant no attack on the Church and I don’t want to be drawn into defending a position I don’t hold. I had in mind “apart from Me you can do nothing” and the idea that whenever we depart from His will, we are dangerous, foolish, and in error. There is a union of man and God that somehow parallels the incarnation, and when we break that, it is at the peril of not only our own souls but those around us. I wan’t even thinking of concepts like indefectability or infallibility when I wrote that. When my friendly neighborhood RCIA instructor decided to teach his own heresies instead of official Catholic teachings, he was apart from Christ, yet in some measure he was the church, being in that position, even though he was teaching false doctrines.

Dangerous? We are all dangerous, mostly to ourselves, then to the ones we love, followed by everyone else.

Petra, you have given me a lot to think about and I’m not done yet. I appreciate your posts. Let me reiterate that this was not an attack on the Church and I am surprised you took it that way. Please accept my apologies.

I am asking for the Catholic case for the link between the doctrine of the incarnation and the authority of the Church. I am still looking at what’s been posted. You point out that I have not explained certain things, as if that has a bearing on the Catholic argument. If the Catholic argument is right, no counter argument can be.

 

[Truthstalker]

Is bystander really the correct qualification? What about instrument? I think we lose the true function of priesthood when we reduce it to onlooker or bystander. The priesthood of believers, for instance, requires particular participation. In much the same way, the ordained priesthood of the New Covenant entails an active mutuality. Christ works through the priest, to be sure, but is it really in spite of him?

Well, no, hmmm. ‘Instrument’ is probably a better word. I think there are people God works through in spite of themselves. I am a prime example. I haven’t thought much about the priesthood. Sounds like a thread: Incarnation and the Priesthood. No, I’ve got enough to think about.

 

[petra]

This is turning into a digression. I meant no attack on the Church and I don’t want to be drawn into defending a position I don’t hold. I had in mind “apart from Me you can do nothing” and the idea that whenever we depart from His will, we are dangerous, foolish, and in error. There is a union of man and God that somehow parallels the incarnation, and when we break that, it is at the peril of not only our own souls but those around us. I wan’t even thinking of concepts like indefectability or infallibility when I wrote that. When my friendly neighborhood RCIA instructor decided to teach his own heresies instead of official Catholic teachings, he was apart from Christ, yet in some measure he was the church, being in that position, even though he was teaching false doctrines.

Dangerous? We are all dangerous, mostly to ourselves, then to the ones we love, followed by everyone else.

Petra, you have given me a lot to think about and I’m not done yet. I appreciate your posts. Let me reiterate that this was not an attack on the Church and I am surprised you took it that way. Please accept my apologies.

I am asking for the Catholic case for the link between the doctrine of the incarnation and the authority of the Church. I am still looking at what’s been posted. You point out that I have not explained certain things, as if that has a bearing on the Catholic argument. If the Catholic argument is right, no counter argument can be.

Truthstalker, I am sorry I misunderstood you. Please accept my apology, as well.

I’m a little confused though. You said that you did not originally intend to discuss infallibility. But on the other hand, you want the link between the doctrine of the incarnation and the Church’s authority. What is the relevance of authority if that which is decreed and proclaimed is not infallible? The basis of the Church’s authority is that Christ gave that authority to her. You said that you hold to Prima Scriptura, which implies that the scriptures are the highest authority, rather than the Church. In so doing, you have identified the source of what you believe to be infallible and authoritative divine revelation.

Clearly, your RCIA instructor was deviating from official Church teaching—very unfortunate! But you can always compare what individuals do and say with the Church’s official teaching. However, your earlier statement that the Catholic Church is at its best when doing nothing and is otherwise dangerous, seemed to be a macro-analysis of the Church universally, rather than the errors of individuals. You said above, “I had in mind “apart from Me you can do nothing” and the idea that whenever we depart from His will, we are dangerous, foolish, and in error.” You seem to believe that at a macro-level, the Catholic Church is somehow “apart from Christ” and, as such, is dangerous, foolish, and in error. From the Catholic standpoint, this is impossible. It really does boil down to the concept of infallibility.

The direct link between the incarnation (the God-man Jesus Christ) and the authority of the Church is the giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter. It is plain what this means, given its historical and cultural context. Jesus gave Peter the authority of head of household, so to speak, which involves the discretion to establish binding disciplines upon the members of the household (Church). Whatever the Church does in this capacity has Christ’s full and unreserved endorsement. If this still does not get at your question, let me know where the gap is, and I’ll try to explain it better.

 

[Truthstalker]

There’s this stunning link you present between incarnation, authority and infallibility: stunning in the sense that it stuns.

 

[petra]

There’s this stunning link you present between incarnation, authority and infallibility: stunning in the sense that it stuns.

Okay…I hope that is a good thing!

 

[Truthstalker]

This post is probably pointless, but I’m going to write it anyway, because I haven’t said much lately.

I went to Mass this morning, not sure why, except I wanted to. The same beautiful building, pathetic music, lame homily, inattentive and unenthusiastic people were there. This is Advent, and we were spriinkled and incensed. What happened to the church of the preaching of Chrystotom, of Augustine, with the theology of Aquinas and Anselm. God is excited about us, we were told, from Zephaniah. Well, lah de dah. This is the church of the music of Mozart and Gregory the Great, represented by two guitars and a less than accomplished organist. A bunch of bums in jeans and workshirts showed up on Sunday morning to watch the divine action. Oh yeah, something about God. What happened to the church of the martyrs, of fervor, of faithfulness unto death, of All that Stuff?

So I wondered, and I realized God has enough holiness for everybody. These hairy, somewhat bored people who couldn’t bother to take their coats off (the room was warm), like 45 minutes is too long for time with God, didn’t need to show off. They weren’t the center of attention. I got the feeling that it was like family, not showing off for anybody, just there because there’s where they should be. If they needed to cut their toenails during the consecration, so be it, except that’s not where their attention should be, but who cares, anyway. Real casual.

And I thought: here’s the priest, doing what they’ve done for 2000 years. I thought of the hands laid on heads in unbroken succession, all the way back to Jesus. And I looked at the elements, and thought, these may be accidents that I see, but what is the substance? The priest asked God to do something, he didn’t do the transubstantiation - it is very clear that he doesn’t do it, but if it is done, it is God acting, not man. And I watched the lines of somewhat bored and inattentive overweight people in their jackets shuffle down to the front, to the sound of the lamest music anyone could think of, that makes Muzak sound like Mozart, to receive God from a man who made Barney sound like a deep theologian.

This, God, I said to Him, is Your Church? There is a contrast, a dichotomy, a gulf between what I understand Church is and what I see, perhaps something to do with substance and accidents and essence. We are to give God our best, and if so, what is it in contemporay Catholicism that has church so pulled back, so mediocre, so blah? And all this blah, this half-heartedness, this reluctance to do well was contained, as I said, in a beautiful building, in a structure that holds it together. Christ’s authority is incarnate in the church, and this happens.

I’m exagerrating this somewhat, to make a point, and that point is not to attack the church, but to ask: if this is Christ’s church, and He is shepherding it, why is it in the shape it is in?

 

[JaneFrances]

I’m exagerrating this somewhat, to make a point, and that point is not to attack the church, but to ask: if this is Christ’s church, and He is shepherding it, why is it in the shape it is in?

I would expect some asked very much the same question as they saw their King bleeding, dirty, and brought to his knees under a splintered piece of wood. . . or when their Savior’s limbs were nailed and his side slashed. . .or when their Lord’s body was taken down from the Cross, broken and lifeless.

There is something in the unpleasant, in the brokenness, in the dull and the boring, in the disquieting unrest that makes us think of Him. That makes us depend on Him. That makes it less about Me and more about Him.

I liked what you said about it seeming like a family. . .hair and toenails and all. My mom wishes that we’d all dress for dinner more often.

 

[Truthstalker]

Aquinas, if you are wondering, would never have made a living writing dime-store romance novels. Then there was the Thomist who had a fatal accident. The essence of that joke is
not the substance of it. Ok, I’ll stop. But I have some reading to do.

In Catholic thought, what is authority incarnate in a priest as alter Christi? He stands in for Christ, but as what? As an accident? As ??

JF, are you saying you think your Mom wishes you would dress up for Supper more often? Did I hear you right?

 

[JaneFrances]

JF, are you saying you think your Mom wishes you would dress up for Supper more often? Did I hear you right?

'Deed I am. And 'deed you did.

 

[Joseph_Smith]

Well let us all submit to the word of God on this and then we will have a better understaning of the truth. Jesus you might recall him he is the Lord of creation, the rison savior and and the first born of the dead. Stated the Kingdom of heaven is not of this earth. That is one powerful statement. So effect his kingdom is not of this earth it is a spiritual Kingdom. His bride is a spiritual bride, his church is a spiritual church. Jesus is the chief corner stone of the church. You should consider that Jesus knew long before the catholic church was created that he knew that people would be calling peter the rock. Jesus is the real rock. The 12 apostles as shown in the book of revelation are all shown as being foundation stones none any more important that any other. This if the incarnation thing was right you would have 12 churchs each claiming to be incarnated from each of the apostles. No were in any text is there any incarnations of a apostle spoke period. Why is that because they are not. It is appointed to man to die but once. Even Jesus died only once. So in fact incarnation by a apostle is anti-christ in its teaching. Peter does not inhabit the pope and he can’t he is in a state of sleep. But his soul is with God the giver of life. The bible tell us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Why is that important. Because that is were peters spirit is at. You will notice we do not have millions of other dead christians spirits running around on this planet. The word of God is a two edged sword it reveals what is the truth and it also reveals what is not truth.
Jesus is the only way to the father. A apostle can’t bring you to the father. A pope can’t lead you to truth. Nor a priest. Only the Holy Spirit can lead a person to salvation. Only he does the will of the father in reguard to slvation. Thus Jesus said whom the father gives to me are mine. The holy spirit is servant to the Father and the Son as head of the earthly church. Jesus is the King of the spiritual church.
So whos authority does it take to get saved the Fathers. As in Father God. Thus it is writen call no man father execpt God. So were is all authority vested in the Father of Jesus who is glorifying his son. Each man woman and child have this in common on this earth. We are sinners and unless we repent of our sin and ask the Lord Jesus to be our savior we are lost. That right there is were the only authority is. Our only hope is in the Lord Jesus Christ least any man should boost our salvation is by faith in Jesus the Christ. No man can show me the father, no man can teach me of God or lead me to repent. Only the spirit of God can lead me to truth. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice. That is a vast statement. It declares the people of redemption actually hear the voice of Jesus. This is because his sheep know him. So whos authority are you saved by. Whos incarnation does the bible speak of. There is one christ and one resurrection. Christ was not incarnated. Nor is any man.

 

[Eden]

Jesus you might recall him he is the Lord of creation, the rison savior and and the first born of the dead.

Amen.

Stated the Kingdom of heaven is not of this earth.

The earthly Kingdom is the Church. Please use the following Bible study guide:

2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth.

Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven.

Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given “the throne of His father David.”

Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term “keys,” Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).

Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14.

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus’ “keys” undeniably represent authority. By using the word “keys,” Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Peter’s “keys” fit into the “gates” of Hades which also represent Peter’s pastoral authority over souls.

Matt. 23:2-4 - the “binding and loosing” terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, Jesus said that the Pharisees “bind” heavy burdens but won’t move (“loose”) them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant.

Matt. 13:24-52 -Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about is the universal Church on earth, not the eternal state of glory. Therefore, the keys to the “kingdom of heaven” refers to the authority over the earthly Church.

Matt. 25:1-2 - Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens, five of whom were foolish, further shows that the kingdom is the Church on earth. This kingdom cannot refer to the heavenly kingdom because there are no fools in heaven!

Mark 4:26-32 - again, the “kingdom of God” is like the seed which grows and develops. The heavenly kingdom is eternal, so the kingdom to which Peter holds the keys of authority is the earthly Church.

Luke 9:27 - Jesus says that there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the “kingdom of God.” This kingdom refers to the earthly kingdom of Christ, which Jesus established by His death and resurrection on earth.

Luke 13:19-20 - again, Jesus says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which grew into a tree. This refers to the earthly Church which develops over time, from an acorn to an oak tree (not the heavenly state of glory which is boundless and infinite).

Matt 12:28; Mark 1:15; Luke 11:20; 17:21 - these verses provide more examples of the " kingdom of God" as the kingdom on earth which is in our midst.

1 Chron. 28:5 - Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord. This shows that the “kingdom of God” usually means an earthly kingdom.

1 Chron. 29:23 - Solomon sits on the throne of the Lord as king in place of King David. The throne of God refers to the earthly kingdom.

Matt. 16:19 - Peter holds keys to this new Davidic kingdom and rules while the real King of David (Jesus) is in heaven.

Luke 12:41-42 - when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master’s household of God. “Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household…?”

Ezek. 37:24-25 - David shall be king over them forever and they will have one shepherd. Jesus is our King, and Peter is our earthly shepherd.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Eden]

His bride is a spiritual bride, his church is a spiritual church.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. The Church is visible. Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

You should consider that Jesus knew long before the catholic church was created that he knew that people would be calling peter the rock.

The name Peter means rock. Jesus renamed Peter, “Rock”.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

This if the incarnation thing was right you would have 12 churchs each claiming to be incarnated from each of the apostles.

No, no. Not “incarnation thing”, “apostolic succession”. You see only Peter was given the keys. The 12 apostles were not each given keys. In John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:31-32 Jesus’ creation of Peter’s office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

It is appointed to man to die but once. Even Jesus died only once. So in fact incarnation by a apostle is anti-christ in its teaching. Peter does not inhabit the pope and he can’t he is in a state of sleep.

No one believes that Peter is “incarnated” in the Pope. Succession means they succeeded his office, like President Bush succeeded the office of the Presidency after Clinton. I have no idea where you got the idea that we believe Peter is “incarnated”. And as far as soul sleep, that is a recent invention. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist or a Jehovah’s Witness?

 

[Eden]

By the way, if you could please make a thread for each topic next time, it would be much appreciated. You crammed about 20 different topics into one post. It makes for a lot of posts in order to give a fuller response to each of your statemetns. Thanks.

Please read this Bible study about what “apostolic succession” means. I’m sorry to say that you are really far off track in your knowledge of Catholicism:

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Jesus is the only way to the father.

Indeed. But intercessory prayer is both biblical and pleasing to God:

God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer

1 Tim 2:1-2 - because Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), many Protestants deny the Catholic belief that the saints on earth and in heaven can mediate on our behalf. But before Paul’s teaching about Jesus as the “one mediator,” Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. Paul is thus appealing for mediation from others besides Christ, the one mediator. Why?

1 Tim 2:3 - because this subordinate mediation is good and acceptable to God our Savior. Because God is our Father and we are His children, God invites us to participate in Christ’s role as mediator.

1 Tim. 2:5 - therefore, although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, there are many intercessors (subordinate mediators).

1 Cor. 3:9 - God invites us to participate in Christ’s work because we are God’s “fellow workers” and one family in the body of Christ. God wants His children to participate. The phrase used to describe “fellow workers” is “sunergoi,” which literally means synergists, or cooperators with God in salvific matters. Does God need fellow workers? Of course not, but this shows how much He, as Father, loves His children. God wants us to work with Him.

Mark 16:20 - this is another example of how the Lord “worked with them” (“sunergountos”). God cooperates with us. Out of His eternal love, He invites our participation.

Rom. 8:28 - God “works for good with” (the Greek is “sunergei eis agathon”) those who love Him. We work as subordinate mediators.

2 Cor. 6:1 - “working together” (the Greek is “sunergountes”) with him, don’t accept His grace in vain. God allows us to participate in His work, not because He needs our help, but because He loves us and wants to exalt us in His Son. It is like the father who lets his child join him in carrying the groceries in the house. The father does not need help, but he invites the child to assist to raise up the child in dignity and love.

Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) that we are surrounded by is a great amphitheatre of witnesses to the earthly race, and they actively participate and cheer us (the runners) on, in our race to salvation.

1 Peter 2:5 - we are a holy priesthood, instructed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. We are therefore subordinate priests to the Head Priest, but we are still priests who participate in Christ’s work of redemption.

Rev. 1:6, 5:10 - Jesus made us a kingdom of priests for God. Priests intercede through Christ on behalf of God’s people.
James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.

1 Tim 2:5-6 - therefore, it is because Jesus Christ is the one mediator before God that we can be subordinate mediators. Jesus is the reason. The Catholic position thus gives Jesus the most glory. He does it all but loves us so much He desires our participation.

scripturecatholic.com/saints.html#saints-II