Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?

[rcwitness]

Sure, Peter was a “rock” but weren’t the other Apostles? Aren’t you a stone helping to build the Church of God? I actually don’t claim to be anyone, rather than a servant of God, but I know God has His purpose for Peter, Paul, me, you, etc. I take no pride and I don’t think Paul or Peter did either. They saw themselves as servants and exhorted others to be the same.

So when it comes down to it, we become a part of the Church, “This Rock” when we confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And then go out and fulfill His ministry.

dronald,

I have replied to many of your posts, and I usually focus on the conflicting view we have. I apologies. I do so because I respect much of what you say. You remind me of many good leaders from my Evangelical Free association. I don’t find offense in your arguements. I obviously accept a duty to defend the Catholic faith. But you are a brother and servant of Jesus.

I think our faith should be led by the Holy Spirit. He speaks through our conscience and when a leader relevant to our community is teaching or behaving in a way which raises a red flag in our conscience, we have a duty to search out where they are coming from or why they are doing what they are doing. This may be seeking a higher authority. In this day and age, we have access to lots of authorative Teaching. We are not likely to need to bring an issue all the way up to the Bishop of Rome in order to resolve. That is why I don’t think the Pope has sooo much relativity to our local Comunnion. Yet, we still should be in Communion with him, because his office is what Jesus structured His Mystical Body around. He Himself is in all of us. He is in our hearts and each of our unity and High Priest.

When we don’t have unity, we are able to resort to His Apostolic Teachings, carried on through succession, in order to resolve.

If you do start a thread, I hope to hear what you have to say. I think you have genuine concerns which have roots in your genuine faith in Jesus.

Peace

 

[billcu1]

There is a very anti-Catholic (former cradle Catholic, whose family left the RC church when he was a child and converted to Pentecostalism) pastor that I know through my volunteer work at a program that takes place at his church (even though I do not go to that church). He once said that Jesus did NOT mean for Peter to run the Church. That it was not built on Peter at all and therefore the Catholic Church is wrong wrong wrong.

How could he, a sola scriptura, born again Protestant, believe this, when we read in the Bible:

Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

I was raised a pentecostal and to this day my mother says that the rock that Jesus mentioned was “Revelation knowledge”. Peter was the one smart enough to recognize Jesus as the Christ (messiah). The “rock” was his understanding. I just agree with the church. I guess one could look at it that way if they were sola scriptura as she is. I decided I had enough and came into the church via RCIA several years ago.

 

[glendab]

Where Peter is, there is the Church. No Communion with Rome, no Communion with God nor membership in His Church. And consequentially, no Heaven ever.

Glenda

 

[rcwitness]

Where Peter is, there is the Church. No Communion with Rome, no Communion with God nor membership in His Church. And consequentially, no Heaven ever.

Glenda

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”272 (1271)

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense: (795, 815-816)

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation”308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

832 “The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament… In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted.”312 (814, 811)

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324 (818, 1271, 1399)

These are some references for why I disagree in a profound way to what you are trying to teach.

 

[rcwitness]

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

This recognizes the saving power of Sacred Scripture!

“For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body”

What has been delivered through the Apostles in Communion with Peter,

and preserved through the Apostolic successors in Communion with the Bishop of Rome,

and canonized as such though the councils in Communion with Peter’s successor,

is the Word of God able to save us and our brothers and sisters who do not recognize the significance of the full Communion of the office of Pope.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Quite true. When we put forth this proposition it is because we Love our fellow Christians so much and wish them to have the absolute fullness of faith - which we firmly believe resides within the Catholic Church.

Understood-it is the same motivation as evangelizing non-believers-a concern for others’ welfare.

And I think that the “emphasis” that you speak of tends to be more in the minds of the protestant than in the mind of the Catholic…or at least in a very different way, as I suggested in my earlier post. I don’t say this as a slap to anyone - just as an observation.

Again, I understand that not all catholics emphasize authority to the exclusion of all else, and I understand that some protestants have gotten caught up in the “pope as sinister figure hiding in his lair in Rome” conspiracies. A review of some editorials during JFKs campaign provides excellent examples of this.

Yet, if we compare, catholic & orthodox positions, what key difference appear? The understanding of the role of Peter and its implication for ongoing leadership of the church. In discussions with protestants, there are many theological differences, , but the difference isn’t described by differences in sacramental practice or soteriology, but rather by relationship to the individual claimed as Peter’s successor.

From the catechism:

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, **Peter’s **successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to **Peter **was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of **Peter **and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and **Peter’s **successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, **Peter’s successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by **Peter’s **successor.”

Is it protestants who create the preoccupation with the idea of the pope as a power-exercising authority, or are protestants merely responding to how the church describes itself? There is little flexibility in these statements for understanding how the catholic church operates-883 says other bishops have no authority without the Roman Pontiff-seems like a strong emphasis to me.

How does this translate into the practical understanding of some who identify as catholic?

Where Peter is, there is the Church. No Communion with Rome, no Communion with God nor membership in His Church. And consequentially, no Heaven ever.

Glenda

While I understand this isn’t official catholic teaching (rcwitness does a nice job citing that), it is a sentiment that is suggested in some older papal writings and seems to demonstrate exactly the situation Paul was warning against in I Corinthians.

Yes - the big thing here is “IF” our belief is incorrect, and certainly history has given us ample reason to be careful.
Yet - as another has pointed out, those who were bad popes did not change fundamental teaching. The reason being (IMHO) is that they simply were not that interested in these things. As you say - their behavior suggests no consideration of things eternal.

Well yes and no…These conversations can often be free-wheeling and as you can see, I prefer to NOT keep such conversation too narrowly defined because I think it bears less fruit. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that it is a too narrow conversation that can be a roadblock to coming to a real understanding.

That said, I do not expect that you and I should come to agreement here. Each is seeking only to plat a few seeds and to try to understand the other a bit better.
I think we are accomplishing that.

Peace
James

I don’t think the discussion should be limited either, yet I have to remember that (a) the OP posted in hopes of getting an answer to a specific situation, and I don’t want to muddy the waters too much, and (b) debating some points too vigourously gets defined as proselytizing, with rather painful consequences.

This makes it difficult to truly examine exegetical arguments as a thorough examination can have terminal consequences on one’s ability to participate in the forum. In trying to help the OP understand why many of the arguments presented aren’t convincing to those not already convinced, it is a narrow tightrope to walk-I agree that understanding is something to hope for, to form the basis of further discussion.

 

[rcwitness]

Is it protestants who create the preoccupation with the idea of the pope as a power-exercising authority, or are protestants merely responding to how the church describes itself? There is little flexibility in these statements for understanding how the catholic church operates-883 says other bishops have no authority without the Roman Pontiff-seems like a strong emphasis to me.

How does this translate into the practical understanding of some who identify as catholic?

James will be able to explain very well himself, but my practical understanding is…

It would be the same thing as the 11 Apostles holding a council and giving a decree regarding matters of salvation without Peter. So too the Bishops in the Catholic Church are not able to bind anything on the WHOLE Church outside the participation of the successor of Peter’s office.

Regarding Protestantism (in general), I consider it as divided, though not to the point of incapable of providing the means of salvation, because it took, without full consent, the Written Word (a means of salvation) and spread it around without proper Interpretation.

 

[dronald]

The OP deals with the Pentecostals private claim and own foundational Christian community, instead of what Jesus said and did.

Do the non-Catholics discount what Jesus said and did in divine revelation? And then try and use His own Word to discredit Jesus against His acts, as if not to pay any mind to what Jesus revealed?

**How in the world does a schism in the Corinthian Church over rate Jesus commissioning of Peter?

The Corinthians are babes in Christ, Paul is using their false understanding of who they think their own Church belongs to. Many apostles early on in their evangelization overlapped Church communities, Paul is saying the Church does not belong to either of these men. Paul’s instruction never conflicts or contradicts Jesus teachings or commissioning of Peter to tend and feed His flock. Nor does Paul’s instruction to the infant Church in Corinth, conflict with Jesus building His Church upon Peter. Context, context please.**

1 Corin 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Here is Jesus when He laid the foundation;

Matthew 16:13…"Who do men say that the Son of man is?.. Simon replied, “You are the Son of the living God.”…17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

We Catholics have no problem with obeying and following Jesus here; If the discussion is not with Jesus own words? Then the problem is never with Jesus and Peter, the problem is what Paul is addressing the baby Corinthians problems. They are viewing Men like the Pentecostal preacher is viewing himself as the one Jesus personally built the Pentecostal preacher’s own church by men of the flesh.

I don’t think the non-Catholic posters are being fair to themselves. By not providing evidence on the contrary to support their disagreements of Jesus building His Church upon Peter according to the first century biblical interpretations of the scriptures presented.

I ask for the non-Catholic posters to bring your evidence in support of or in difference of the OP. Don’t deny the argument or move away from the evidence, by proposing and interpreting sacred scripture as if to use it to contradict or conflict with God.

I would like to know from non-Catholic posters, How do you justify the Pentecostal pastor claims or your own view of what Jesus meant when He changed Simons name to Peter and gave him keys from which Jesus will build His Church upon.

In regards to the OP.
Catholics here can be confirming Peter’s office from biblical times all through recorded history to the present time. How does the Pentecostal preacher justify his claims that Jesus did not build his church upon Peter?

The Church was built on Jesus Christ obviously, then Peter, then the 11, then their Disciples, then those in Antioch, Corinth, Rome, Turkey, Canada, USA, Australia, etc. We’re all stones; a royal Priesthood.

Again though, I take no pride for in myself is no good. I am nothing, rather God is everything who gives the growth.

 

[dronald]

Once again, Paul’s writting are proved to be difficult to understand.

You might do well to remember who in the Christian communities is divided. Where have all these Protestant churches started? They have divided at specific points in history, which were founded by certain men! Look up the roots of your denomination, and you will find it was founded by someone other than Jesus. The Church built on Peter was founded by Jesus.

We do not say that Peter is our Saviour. We do not say that He founded the Church. We do not follow Peter. What we believe, is what the Lord said…

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus Himself founded the Church on Peter. We dont say Peter is the Rock of our Salvation, or the Rock of our Faith, but that Peter is the rock which Jesus built His Church on. That is overwhelmingly evident in the rest of the N.T. Peter was a Chief Apostle. That meant he had authority among the rest. Still, like all the Apostles, that authority came by Jesus and the Gospel they received from Jesus.

Just Go to a Mass, you will see for yourself. We hold Jesus as our Priest, Prophet, and King, in whom we are given all things.

I understand that you don’t see Peter as some type of god of course. Rather, because we don’t put as much emphasis on Peter individually your Church claims that we don’t have “unity.” I believe this is what Paul wrote strictly against and it baffles me that it’s still a problem almost 2000 years later.

 

[rcwitness]

I understand that you don’t see Peter as some type of god of course. Rather, because we don’t put as much emphasis on Peter individually your Church claims that we don’t have “unity.” I believe this is what Paul wrote strictly against and it baffles me that it’s still a problem almost 2000 years later.

I guess Catholicism Teaches Protestants don’t have full unity, not that there in no unity. I understand there can be much unity within Protestantism.

Still, the reformation had an element of attack on Our Eucharist when it attacked the abuses on Our Eucharist. The abuses on Our Eucharist were from the very leaders of the Catholic faith.

Something I think the Catholic Faith recognizes which maybe some Protestants tend to mistake, is that we are not all Apostles. We haven’t all received the Revelation in the same manner as them. We were handed it down through the ages, and imperative to that preservation has been and still is the leadership offices.

But here is my thinking. The amount of disunity held by a Protestant from the Cat Church can be very very minor. But the amount of disunity within Protestantism can range quite large.

Protestants in general do not care about the disunity with one another, because they focus their unity on Jesus alone. Well that sounds great, but in the end, there is always something which the individual is not Interpreting correctly about the Writen Word which they hold as sole authority. So division occurs.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912
I wonder if that Pentecostal preacher acknowledges the authority of Peter to write the quoted Scripture above? Did every first century Christian have authority to lay out instructions and teaching like this?

Yeah, probably.

So every Christian could lay out discipline like Paul gave for excommunication to Hymenaeus and Alexander? Could Hymenaeus and Alexander discipline Paul?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I were the pentecostal pastor, I would be more convinced that I was correct after reading this, then I was before this “evidence” was presented. Let’s review:

…

So, taking all of this evidence into account, I think there is a reasonable case for the pentecostal minister to believe as he does.

That would be a mistake.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus promises to build ONE Church and He also names as the Rock upon which that Church will be built.

In other passages of scripture, rock refers to God, to Jesus, to the apostles, etc.

But in Matthew 16:18, Jesus promises to build…Jesus is the builder. Peter is the rock the Church is built upon.

The implications of that are HUGE.

 

[zz912]

Sure he would. Just as he would acknowledge the authority of Paul to do the same thing.
In fact, I would guess that we probably have more “instructions” from Paul than we do from Peter.
So I really don’t think you would get very far with this argument…
More telling in this vein would be the fact that Paul went up after a time and laid out his teaching to Peter and James to make sure that he was not “running in vain”.
Perhaps a good question to ask the Pentecostal pastor would be - - who should you go to in order to make sure you are not running in vain?

Paul had Scripture…Paul had the Holy Spirit…why did he feel the need to get this assurance? What is the Spirit trying to teach here?

Just a thought.

Peace
James

My question specified if any Christian had the same authority as Peter or Paul. Getting them to admit there was REAL authority that Peter had undermines the whole argument.

 

[zz912]

If I were the pentecostal pastor, I would be more convinced that I was correct after reading this, then I was before this “evidence” was presented. Let’s review:

1. In 1Peter 2 dronald points out that Peter identifies Christ as the cornerstone or foundation stone depending on your preferred translation (since Jesus is the one were are called to believe in).
2. rcwitness points out that in Ephesians 2 Paul tells us that the cornerstone or foundation stone is Jesus.

So we have Peter and Paul, who were both closely associated with the church in Rome being contradicted by those who identify as current members of that church.

Well, first, the foundation is not the same as the cornerstone, and neither of which are the same as the bedrock. Those are all different things. So when Jesus says He will build His Church on Peter, that doesn’t mean Peter is the foundation. The foundation will rest on the rock/kepha. Of this foundation, Jesus is the cornerstone. If you know about construction, the cornerstone is the MOST important, as all others must rely on it. The cornerstone MUST be perfect or the whole building will be “off”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Non Serviam;11991010]You create a false dichotomy here. I never said Jesus didn’t commission Peter, I simply disagreed with your interpretation of what Peter was commissioned to do, and provided Peter’s own explanation of his commissioning.

There is no false dichotomy in what Jesus reveals to Peter and the apostles in Matthew 16:13-17. This is my whole premise with the OP. What you relate to is something other and not related to what Jesus said and did.

Keeping it simple here; I have introduced Jesus revelation of building His Church upon Peter. That is not my view, that is Jesus doing the works of His Father. We have provided a Catholic 2000 year old interpretation of Matthew 16.

The question is to you. Give us your interpretation of Jesus revelation of Matthew 16;13-17. You haven’t, you left the subject of Jesus building His Church on Peter with His own Word, into subjects that are not related to what Jesus said and did upon Peter.

I am prepared to present much scripture in support of Jesus building HIs Church upon Peter. But how can I pitch to you, when you haven’t got up to bat?

How does your interpretation of Jesus own Words differ in Matthew 16:13-17? Give us your foundation, and we can give you Jesus foundation, without any hyperbole of scripture.

These are Peter’s words from his own mouth explaining the commissioning he was given in Matthew-how is it you place someone else’s words over those of Peter when you claim to submit to his authority? You need to explain away this passage and Peter’s own words before you can offer another interpretation.

Thank you, I would love to; Peter’s own words never discounts Jesus Words when Jesus builds His Church upon Peter. Peter’s commissioning and primacy is given to him by Jesus Himself which is found in John 21:15-17. I don’t place anyone’s words over Jesus Words.

I don’t claim to submit to Peter’s authority. I submit to Jesus authority who gave Peter the authority on earth with divine keys to bind and loose on earth. You are greatly mistaken about the understanding of the biblical Magisterium which Jesus places within His body the Church on earth.

Back to Peter speaking to the Council. We know Peter is the only one who walks on water not on his own power, but by Jesus presence with him who promised to never leave him.

Peter is the only one who receives a vision from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the Church. It is from this known vision Peter receives from heaven (see Acts 10:9-17) that the councils fell silent when Peter speaks to the council of allowing the Gentiles into the whole Church by baptism not circumcision.

Peter decides for the whole Church not just one community for the Gentiles to enter the Church, Jesus builds upon Peter.

Cornelius a Gentile who is sent to Peter by an Angel from heaven. Here is Cornelius a Gentile meeting Peter for the first time; Act 10;25…When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying (as all other Popes have said who succeeds Peter) “stand up; I too am a man”.

The reason I point this out to you; Deals with Peter hearing from heaven to now allow the Gentiles into the Church. It has nothing to do with Peter’s primacy and his commissioning from Jesus. But your quote of Peter deals with Peter’s first knowledge from heaven that what ever God makes clean is clean. Thus Gentiles are not required circumcision as the Jerusalem Church community was insisting upon the Gentiles. Peter and heaven revealed to the council baptism allows anyone into the body of Christ His Church.

Jesus makes a distinction between Jew and Gentiles, when Jesus states, “Salvation comes from the Jews first”, meaning Himself and His apostles and prophets, then to the whole earth in every age till Jesus returns. Peter alone reveals from Heaven how this is done, by baptism.

Paul clearly shows that some were dividing the church by putting their dedication to an apostle ahead of their unity in Christ. Why do you engage in a behaviour he specifically warned against? What is your justification in placing loyalty to Peter ahead of our unity in Christ?

No, that is not true; To put me in Paul’s circumstance with Corinthians would be seen like this; I would be saying my local bishop is the only one I will follow, and not Peter, nor Paul because my bishop baptised and confirmed me in the faith of Jesus Christ. Now is your assumption a reality of Catholics? I think you know my position in reality here and it is not the one you have wrongly supposed of me.

Reality is all bishops world wide are in full communion with Peter as One in the body of Christ which is His Church, not Peter’s Church, nor Paul’s Church. The Church is the body of Christ.

What it appears is your false dichotomy that expresses protestants and non-catholic christians who are without the apostolic successors of Paul and Peter is the same Church Jesus founded upon Peter and His apostles. Because Peter said, what God revealed to Him from heaven after the resurrection of Jesus; “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe”. By Peter’s mouth, God made the Choice to allow the Gentiles into the Church.

Peter is exercising his God given authority to speak and by his authority Jesus gives him, Peter allows the Gentiles into the Church by baptism only not by circumcision.

 

[JRKH]

My question specified if any Christian had the same authority as Peter or Paul. Getting them to admit there was REAL authority that Peter had undermines the whole argument.

You are right. I addressed one part of your question but really didn’t address the rest.
I agree that asking about who had authority to lay down discipline etc… is a good question.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yet, if we compare, catholic & orthodox positions, what key difference appear? The understanding of the role of Peter and its implication for ongoing leadership of the church. In discussions with protestants, there are many theological differences, , but the difference isn’t described by differences in sacramental practice or soteriology, but rather by relationship to the individual claimed as Peter’s successor.

Indeed - and yet (I believe) even among the Orthodox they are willing to accept the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter and overall head of the Church. We differ in the details…and some other things…but we are talking…

Is it protestants who create the preoccupation with the idea of the pope as a power-exercising authority, or are protestants merely responding to how the church describes itself? .

hhmmmm…Good question.
First let me say that, to a Catholic there really isn’t a “pre-occupation” on this. It simply is and we accept it as such. In other words we don’t really dwell on it. That fact alone may be part of the problem as well.
For as I said protestants can have the narrow view emphasizing (singular) “power”, the Catholic can take a very similar view - but thinking less about “power” and more about authority to teach. Both views tend to be rather narrow…and unless one is willing to explore the larger ramifications of Church structure, responsibility etc. the conversation can very quickly reach an impasse.
Forgive me if the above sounds a bit like hair splitting.

There is little flexibility in these statements for understanding how the catholic church operates-883 says other bishops have no authority without the Roman Pontiff-seems like a strong emphasis to me

Yes it does and it indeed it should. The Chair of Peter, which the Pope occupies in the touchstone of unity. This view is one that speaks very strongly to the type of Unity that Christ prayed for.
Consider ----
In John 17:20-21 - Jesus prays thus…
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jesus prays for a very profound union - to be so much one that we are a single person - The image of unity, and the person of the Pope, provides this touchstone.
Remove this single point - this touchstone of teaching and unity - and chaos can very easily ensue - as was seen with the advent of the reformation. So I believe this is very much why the Church expresses herself as she does.

Of course - I’m not saying that we have maintained a perfect unity among the bishops…but that is the idea and the goal. To be one as Jesus and the Father are one…to fulfill Christ’s prayer.

How does this translate into the practical understanding of some who identify as catholic?

Can’t really answer this - I can only share my views…Others will have to speak for themselves.

Peace
James

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dronald;11992075]The Church was built on Jesus Christ obviously, then Peter, then the 11, then their Disciples, then those in Antioch, Corinth, Rome, Turkey, Canada, USA, Australia, etc. We’re all stones; a royal Priesthood.

Catholics do not believe that the Church was built on Jesus Christ. We believe Jesus Christ Himself is the builder of the Church, When Jesus states Himself that "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. Jesus brings the kingdom of God to us.

The kingdom of God is not limited to any geographical location or people. The members or stones of the Church are those who have been baptized into the body of Christ His Church, these members include holy virgins and peoples from every tribe, nation and tongue in every age and those yet to be born into the Church Militant (on earth) in full communion with the Church Triumphant in heaven. There is no division in the body of Christ the Church, not even death can separate us from God’s love.

Jesus laid the foundation of His Church, when He begins to build upon Peter and His apostles in the universal = Catholic Church that does not exclude anyone, when she is commissioned by God to invite all into the kingdom, and baptize them into the body of Christ His Church.

Again though, I take no pride for in myself is no good. I am nothing, rather God is everything who gives the growth.

The one who spreads the seed and another waters when God provides the growth is a beautiful teaching from Jesus Christ. It has huge mystical revelations that do not limit God’s providence working in creation.

What points directly to the Church being built points the example Jesus leaves His apostles to follow. The Church is built upon the blood of the apostles, saints and martyrs. History records only in the Catholic Church these living stones taking on death with joy at the hands of their persecutors, in order to advance the kingdom of God. These do not die in vain, when they counted it all a blessing to be persecuted and die a martyr for our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does Protestantism have blood martyrs for their faith, who faced their executioners by forgiving them with a joy and confidence that God counted them worthy to die a martyr for their Lord Jesus Christ? I know we Catholics have a long list of such stony saints.

The blood of martyrs is another fact that proves where the Church Jesus built His Church upon Peter and His apostles.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dronald;11992089]I understand that you don’t see Peter as some type of god of course. Rather, because we don’t put as much emphasis on Peter individually your Church claims that we don’t have “unity.”

We don’t put much emphasis on Peter, we follow Jesus who put’s His own emphasis on Peter, when Jesus tells Simon Bar Jona, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”. Jesus sends and tells Peter and the apostles, “when they hear you, they hear me”. We don’t make this up, the Lord made this so.

The Catholic Church has made it known, that by virtue of your valid baptisms’ you are all Catholic and by no fault of your own, have become separated from full communion with the mystical body of Christ. If your validly baptized in the blessed Trinity, your unity is one, when no man can separated what God has joined together.

What you relate to dis-unity is your full communion with Jesus body in the Catholic Church.
The dis-unity of Protestantism is not Jesus, but it’s leadership and differing interpretations of that leadership and teachings of Jesus Christ. The teachings and revelations that come from Protestantism that do not conflict with Catholicism are the one’s your reforming father’s took with them, when they left the Catholic Church. All others are invented by men, not God.

I believe this is what Paul wrote strictly against and it baffles me that it’s still a problem almost 2000 years later.

No, you introduce a different problem other than the one Paul reveals to the Corinthian community. It’s not the same as our present situation when the reformers of Protestantism left the Catholic Church.

The Corinthians all had the same Catholic faith deposited to them from different apostles early on. Paul arrives on the scene, and find them acting in the flesh by claiming they belong to one apostle and not the other. Paul informs them to stop thinking and acting according to the flesh. Paul later identifies that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is the head of the body the Church. Jesus laid the foundation of the Church. The Church does not belong to either one of their apostles who evangelized them. Paul later will teach that there are many members in the body of Christ with differing offices. The example of body parts belonging to one body is used in scripture. When there is only One Lord, One baptism and One Church which in the body of Christ.

I do believe you have introduced the main reason for the opposing view points of Jesus building His Church upon Peter.

The Catholic foundation is built on the one Jesus builds on Peter. History proves this, especially in the unbroken apostolic succession of Peter in the Bishop’s of Rome. When all other apostolic successors have fallen in and out of heresy. Peter and his apostolic successors is the apostolic see that has never fallen into heresy. No human institution can ever make that claim.

Protestantism leaves their Catholic magisterium and apostolic sacred Traditions and bible by removing/relabeling 7 canonized books of the bible. The reformers exchanged the 2000 year old Apostolic Catholic Church, and invent their own church communities taking inventing their own unheard of Sola Teachings and claiming them to be infallible teachings, when they never have any God given authority to do so. Thus they invent their own freedom’s from the Sola teachings and become many different self infallible heads in divided leaderships to interpret scripture, which is their sole authority to do so.

When scripture clearly states that Jesus did not build His Church on any of the protestant reformers but on Peter.

In retrospect, what unites all of Protestantism, is their unity to protest against Peter and the Catholic church from which the valid Protestants came from.

**In reality, I don’t think the problem with the Pentecostal preacher has a problem with Jesus building His Church upon Peter. The problem is the Pentecostal preacher is not willing to submit his own authority over his community of Christians which he never has, to Jesus who gives His authority via the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

Tell me when did Jesus ever give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to this Pentecostal preacher to bind and loose with them on earth? If you can prove Jesus gave His keys to HIs kingdom to the Pentecostal preacher, Let be the first to enroll under those divine keys.**

Peace be with you

 

[JRKH]

I understand that you don’t see Peter as some type of god of course. Rather, because we don’t put as much emphasis on Peter individually your Church claims that we don’t have “unity.” I believe this is what Paul wrote strictly against and it baffles me that it’s still a problem almost 2000 years later.

I cannot speak for others, but it is not because of Peter that I would say that protestants do not have unity. Rather it is because of the many different, and even conflicting, doctrines on matters related to salvation that I would say you don’t have unity.

If the Sola Scriptura world was a single church, with common and universal doctrines on essential matters, then I would say the above argument would be valid.
But
when one protestant group says that water baptism is necessary for salvation and another protestant group says no it isn’t…
when one protestant group says you can lose your salvation after baptism and another protestant group says no you can’t…
when one protestant group says Christ is really and truly present in the bread and wine while another protestant group says it is only symbolic…

Such differences do not bespeak of unity…nor do they speak to the sufficiency of Scripture as interpreted by the individual…

The Bible calls for councils - for being of one mind - for being united - for being one as Jesus and the Father are one…

Peace
James