A
Annie39
Guest
Thank you for your reply Tomi. Is Calvin your highest authority on objective truth?
Thanks
Annie
- Status
Thanks
Annie
B
brb3
Guest
Tomi…
Do u subscribe to utter/total depravity…like Calvin ?
Do u subscribe to utter/total depravity…like Calvin ?
T
Tomyris
Guest
Can you show me where this is official Church teaching? Does the Catechism, for example, use the phrase “cafeteria Catholics”? Where does it single out these two as “possibly true apostates to the faith & church”? Or are you doing what you condemn them for?
T
Tomyris
Guest
No. I am puzzled that you are even asking.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Not sure what you are asking. I am not in favor of it, but there it is. Total depravity is misunderstood and frequently portrayed as something it is not, especially among those polemically inclined to fault it. I am not sure I agree 100% with Calvin on total depravity. Nor am I sure I disagree with him on this.
This is off the thread topic, by the way.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Also there is this:
Here the apostles are bent out of shape because someone not in their following is doing Christ’s work. This is also in Mark 9:38. Take a look at Jesus’ ministry when his apostles wanted to call down fire from heaven and destroy the Samaritans. His ministry is different. Today it seems someone may also think it desirable to call down fire from heaven, and even follow apostolic desires, but be far from the heart of God in doing so.
A
Annie39
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not even close.
Peter – The Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)
Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own; God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon the humble fisherman. In turn, Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way, and He declared, “Blessed are you” because the Father had already blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son. Speaking in His native tongue, Aramaic, Jesus gave Simon a new name, “Kepha”, the Aramaic word that means “rock”. Jesus declared, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”
Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”, and obviously, “petros” is the more suitable form for a man’s name. From “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”, but we must never lose sight of the fact that in the original language used by Jesus, Simon is clearly identified as the rock upon which the Church would be built by Jesus. Jesus announced His intention to establish His Church (singular – not “churches” plural) and His choice of Peter as its leader.
What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
Matthew also tells us that Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.
How does this relate to what we have learned from Matthew? In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.
Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.
Thus, we know that Jesus is a king who will reign forever. Matthew tells us that that King Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Although Peter died as a martyr (as Jesus foretold), the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office of royal steward that Jesus established in His royal court.
In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:
"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)
Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter as His royal steward. Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.
Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.
A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
In conclusion, we have seen that Matthew has packed an incredible amount of information into one brief passage. We know that Jesus promised that He Himself would build a single Church with Peter as the rock upon which that Church would be built, that the office of head of the Church would be eternal, and that the Church itself must be protected from ever teaching error.
A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).
Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
In conclusion, we have seen that Matthew has packed an incredible amount of information into one brief passage. We know that Jesus promised that He Himself would build a single Church with Peter as the rock upon which that Church would be built, that the office of head of the Church would be eternal, and that the Church itself must be protected from ever teaching error.
B
brb3
Guest
Actually, just the opposite. Today, the prevailing desire of majority of US society & many nominal Catholics is to reject clear teachings of Christ and accept every errant secular idea as legit. RE: marriage, abortion, clergy makeup, the sacraments, sexual perversions, the commandments, etc.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Irrelevant.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Off thread. Dead horse beaten 1000x.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Jesus Christ. He wrote the Bible.
This is off thread. I am simply not going to respond to any more posts that are off topic.
A
Annie39
Guest
Ok Tomi. I see that you are new here. Keep reading the web site.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
What does that even mean? And why did Christ specifically give him the keys? And why did Paul tell Titus to appoint men to oversee the churches near him, if authority was to be somehow destroyed after their deaths? And why didn’t they say that apostolic authority would die after their deaths? And why did Paul say to hold fast to tradition? And why did John say that much of what Christ taught was not written down?Now we are discussing Petrine authority, which is within the thread’s scope. There is a presupposition as to what that authority entailed that needs to be looked at in order to discuss the reasons for the non-zapping, I suppose, if we attempt to keep on thread.
Peter’s authority was the same as his brother apostles and his apostolic authority died with him. ** He had a primacy, yes, but not an authority over the other apostles**. I know you disagree, but there it is.
You are confusing me mightily.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Peter, keys, etc., has been done to death a thousand times on this forum. I am sorry I distracted the thread with the comments about it. I made some comments that have not been addressed.
A
Annie39
Guest
Tomi
Which of your comments of yours have not been addressed? The one where you say that Jesus wrote the Bible? Okay. When and where did He write the Bible? Do we have the originals? How do we varify that it was indeed His writing?
Annie
G
Goya
Guest
First, I don’t believe those were her ‘presuppositions’–she relayed a question that was posed to her, by her son–probably because someone at the Calvinist Church he attends, ask him.
Secondly, what does it matter how Luther and Calvin saw themselves??? The Church never viewed them as reformers.
Third–following up on Ad Orientem’s point–turn the tables–how come the Papacy has never been punished as Korah, if the papacy is the ‘anti-christ’, as so many protestant denominations contend?
Why hasn’t the Lord done away with the Catholic Church altogether, and obliterated it into 1,000 pieces, if it was so diametrically opposed to Christ’s Church, as the protestants allege?
Why has teh Catholic Church remained ONE–and furthermore, the largest Church in the world–while protestantism continues to multiply into thousands of competing sects…
…if the Catholic Church isn’t the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ himself, founded?
Didn’t Christ promise St. Peter that the ‘gates of Hades’ would not prevail against it [His Church]? Seems to me that if protestantism were true–and Christ’s Church has been splintered into 10,000 different sects as protestantism has been…then Jesus would have been proven wrong in his prophecy.
Not so, with the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus Christ himself, founded.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
G
Goya
Guest
…and Lucifer started out as an angel of the Lord…
Pretty sure that excommunication nullifies baptism.
As for Moses? I must respectfully dissent with the prior poster’s suggestion that Moses was not in the Kingdom–how else could it be, that Moses appeared to Jesus, at the transfiguration?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
G
Goya
Guest
You seem to be getting awful defensive about Luther and Calvin, and I’m not sure it’s warranted. The OP relayed a question that was posed TO her, by her son–and quite possibly, if not likely, it was a rhetorical question posed to her son–by PROTESTANTS (Notice the part where she volunteered that her son attends a Calvinist Church?).
Hence it doesn’t appear that the OP is equating Korah to Luther and Calvin–but protestants who are drawing the comparison, in order to point out the difference in treatment (neverminding that it works both ways, as the Papacy remains intact, and strong).
What’s more, I submit that the protestant view of the papacy, is significantly more insulting, vitriolic and malicious, than the Catholic view of Luther and Calvin.
Many protestants claim the office of the papacy is the anti-christ–while the Catholic Church has merely decreed Luther and Calvin to be Heretics.
Anti-Christ > heretics (in terms of malice and vitriol).
The bottom line sir, is that your righteous indignation appears to be mis-guided, as it the source of the comparison probably traces back to protestants–not Catholics (in this case anyway–perhaps the OP may clarify this point…).
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
- Status