Peter being declared pope argument

[Gorgias]

Not if I was created in a dish then implanted into a women who gave birth to me… then no, she wasn’t my mom when she gave birth to me, she was just someone who gave birth to me.

LOL! Good job making up that strawman!

But yes… the woman who gives birth to you is your mother. Even on the day you’re born. Even if your conception is unnatural.

Jesus accepted them doesn’t mean He created them.

Actually, Jesus’ own words are stronger than that, and demonstrate that you’re kinda missing the point. Jesus uses the circumlocution “in heaven”; it was common in those days among Jews, so that it wouldn’t be tempting to call on the name of God. Matthew is writing to a Jewish Christian audience, so he adopts their linguistic patterns. So, what is it that Jesus is actually saying? “What you bind on earth will be bound by God; what you loose on earth will be loosed by God.” It’s not that Jesus merely ‘accepts’ the authority that Jesus gives Peter… it’s that Jesus is asserting that God Himself binds and looses when Peter binds and looses!

it was that sense of power that allowed The Catholic church, to declare itself as the one true church

You realize, don’t you, that the Church was calling itself “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” far far before it ever had “power” or “money”, right?

 

[annad347]

So, what is it that Jesus is actually saying? “What you bind on earth will be bound by God ; what you loose on earth will be loosed by God .” It’s not that Jesus merely ‘accepts’ the authority that Jesus gives Peter… it’s that Jesus is asserting that God Himself binds and looses when Peter binds and looses!

But how is that different from what I said? What Peter created on earth will be accepted in heaven. Bound, accepts, allowed, praised, pleasing… how is that different, its still accepted by God.

You realize, don’t you, that the Church was calling itself “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” far far before it ever had “power” or “money”, right?

Yes and I kind of wish money never became an issue when it came to Jesus… that His followers continued to serve as Jesus originally wanted… it would have made them, in today’s time, a lot stronger.

Money can sometimes corrupt in such a way it destroys the very thing its was meant to help.

 

[Gorgias]

But how is that different from what I said?

It’s night-and-day different!

What Peter created on earth will be accepted in heaven. Bound, accepts, allows… how is that different, its accepted by God.

No: it’s not just that God accepts it – Jesus is saying that when Peter declares, God likewise declares. It’s not that God merely “accepts” or “allows” – Jesus is saying that God literally is speaking through Petrine declarations!

I kind of wish money never became an issue when it came to Jesus… that His followers continued to serve as Jesus originally wanted…

Why would you say that the Church became something that Jesus didn’t want it to become? I mean… money was part of Jesus’ ministry, too! He had an apostolic treasurer, and he had followers who financially supported His ministry. That continues to this day!

Money can sometimes corrupt

It can; but when it does, it reflects the weakness of humanity, not the will of God.

 

[annad347]

No: it’s not just that God accepts it – Jesus is saying that when Peter declares, God likewise declares. It’s not that God merely “accepts” or “allows” – Jesus is saying that God literally is speaking through Petrine declarations!

But is it the same, as Peter established… Things kind of got messed up, history proves things got messed up. Its only by God’s Grace we have the bible. By God’s Grace it was proven to have been written by the apostles or students of the apostles… and its through His Grace the translations are how God intended them to be.

The rest, I’m still thinking about…

Why would you say that the Church became something that Jesus didn’t want it to become? I mean… money was part of Jesus’ ministry , too! He had an apostolic treasurer, and he had followers who financially supported His ministry. That continues to this day!

But its not the same as it was in Jesus’s time… or even apostles time.

My teacher said, those who control the bank controls the money… when that fell on the church in some cases it wasn’t good.

It can; but when it does, it reflects the weakness of humanity, not the will of God.

Totally agree. Money can be man’s weakness… has nothing to do with the will of God.

I’m saying when those in charge are corrupted by money it kind of kills things.

but anyway, like I said this is all just my opinion… and might be off topic from the original poster so I’ll stop.

 

[Gorgias]

But is it the same, as Peter established… Things kind of got messed up, history proves things got messed up.

Actually, it’s the “messed up” parts that demonstrates that the charism of infallibility is true! In those ways in which Petrine ministry is exercised infallibly, we have God’s protection and truth. But, in those ways in which there is not this protection, we see that people (men, women, priests, nuns, even bishops and popes!) make mistakes.

But its not the same as it was in Jesus’s time… or even apostles time.

No, it’s not the same. Why would we expect it to be? Why would we want it to be? Back then, we didn’t have modern medicine, or modern technology, or modern conveniences. Do you want to go back to those dynamics, too?

when that fell on the church in some cases it wasn’t good.

In some cases. Not all.

might be off topic from the original poster so I’ll stop.

Still an important discussion… especially if it’s causing your faith to waver!

 

[Jimbo]

The problem with alot of arguments like that is you have someone who spouts off intelligent sounding stuff ‘Unless you can read the original Hebrew’ making claims he admits are non-falsifiable in the situation he set up. I mean, I can say ‘Well, unless you have a PhD in near eastern studies and are fluent in the X dialect of aramaic you wouldn’t be able to understand’; and it’s a conversation stopper.

And frankly, he’s making a claim that is against pretty much all biblical scholarship I’ve seen, so the burden of proof rests with him (though I’m sure he’d come up with some clever reason why its not).

 

[Justin_Mary]

But is it the same, as Peter established… Things kind of got messed up, history proves things got messed up. Its only by God’s Grace we have the bible. By God’s Grace it was proven to have been written by the apostles or students of the apostles… and its through His Grace the translations are how God intended them to be.

What a lot of people miss is that God did not take on our humanity to write the bible. He did not enter into time to translate the bible.

He came to establish his kingdom. His Church. So its like you said, it’s only by the grace of God that we have the Church, by His grace it had been proven to be established on Apostolic teachings. By His grace those teachings are taught today.

 

[annad347]

What a lot of people miss is that God did not take on our humanity to write the bible. He did not enter into time to translate the bible.

The bible was written by the apostles as well as their students… and I also learned many, many people’s writing could have been included in the writing of the bible… my teacher, told me to look up The Apocryphal Gospels, (we’re studying the gospel of Luke, the researcher.)

I also understand that a lot of research was used to develop the bible we have… all by the Grace of God.

Not written by God, but by His Grace… I understand the difference.

 

[annad347]

Actually, it’s the “messed up” parts that demonstrates that the charism of infallibility is true! In those ways in which Petrine ministry is exercised infallibly, we have God’s protection and truth. But, in those ways in which there is not this protection, we see that people (men, women, priests, nuns, even bishops and popes!) make mistakes.

My comments are not a question of the infallibilty of God, it has to do with the fact that people forget (men, women, priests, nuns, even bishops and popes!) make mistakes and the messed up part was how those mistakes were handled.

It was done badly in the past and present. Its because of man’s incability of handling those mistakes, the way dictated in the very words they (meaning the Catholic, or the church, or ruler/king at the time, you know the history of how we got the bible) translated is what makes others question the idea that the Catholic church is the one true church that was built on Peter. And money had a huge impact on how those mistakes were handled, maybe not in the prestent but definitly in the past.

Back then, we didn’t have modern medicine, or modern technology, or modern conveniences. Do you want to go back to those dynamics, too?

God forbid we should go back to the time of anything modern, espcially technology. :lol:.

I mean its not the same because money given to the church isn’t being used as it was intened by God… it hasn’t in the past or the present… again IMO

Still an important discussion… especially if it’s causing your faith to waver!

Who says my faith is wavering… my faith is where it should be in God, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

 

[Gorgias]

My comments are not a question of the infallibilty of God, it has to do with the fact that people forget (men, women, priests, nuns, even bishops and popes!) make mistakes

No – infallibility, as the Church uses the term, doesn’t mean that “God is infallible”; it means that “when the magisterium of the Church makes a pronouncement of doctrine or dogma (i.e., of the faith or morals), it is protected by God from teaching error”.

Any other mistakes – policies, prudential judgments, etc – aren’t covered by “infallibility”. And, just like any other person, they can (and will!) make mistakes. Why would we just members of the Church more harshly than we’d judge you or me?

they (meaning the Catholic, or the church, or ruler/king at the time, you know the history of how we got the bible) translated is what makes others question the idea that the Catholic church is the one true church that was built on Peter.

Again: people make mistakes. Why are you holding a normal fact of human nature against the Church as an institution?

Who says my faith is wavering… my faith is where it should be in God, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

And what about the Church that God – The Son – founded? Shouldn’t there be faith there, too?

 

[Peebo]

Who is this teacher you are talking about…why is this teacher telling you to look up the Apocryphal Gospels…for what reason…the canon of the Bible came about by the church that was founded by Jesus Christ and his promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his church…which of course are those men who have been given authority handed down from Saint Peter…we have the tradition of the church and the Bible…we have the Magisterium of the church…men may make mistakes…the “church” founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes…there is no IMO…you either accept what the church teaches or you don’t.

 

[steve-b]

Thanks for the help! I just feel like I dug myself into a hole in the argument and I don’t know how get out of it.

Hope this helps

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Translation:
ἐκκλησία (ecclesia) = church ,
καθ’ (kata)= according to ,
ὅλης (holos)= whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς (ho)= the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Still within the 1st century, (BTW a.d. 69 is before the book of Acts is written)

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch who was bishop from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. ordained by the apostles, and direct disciple of St John. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 Acts 11:26 RSVCE - and when he had found him, he brought - Bible Gateway Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church” here, (Christian) in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8). From his Epistle to the Smyrnæans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm . He also writes schismatics won’t be going to heaven, from his Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm .

Ignatius would have learned what he wrote, from the apostles who he knew and who taught him. He was Bishop for ~38 yrs. While he wrote his letters at the end of his life, (he knew when he was arrested, that he was going to be fed to the lions), his writings would not be something knew. He taught orally what he later wrote, for his life as a bishop. And what he was taught by the apostles wasn’t knew news. It’s obviously what THEY taught Ignatius.

Fast forward to today

Newman made the following phrase famous

to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant

To paraphrase that famous statement

to be deep in history is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church

 

[Justin_Mary]

The bible was written by the apostles as well as their students…

What do you know of liturgy?

 

[annad347]

What do you know of liturgy?

why do you ask?

 

[annad347]

And what about the Church that God – The Son – founded? Shouldn’t there be faith there, too?

Its getting hard to explain what I’m trying to say without sounding like I don’t believe Jesus Christ said to Peter, you are the stone on which I will build my church… or that I don’t have faith in the bible, the church… I just understand how people will question if that church is called The Catholic church.

That might sound like a cop out but it just seems the more I learn about the history of The Catholic church… and understand what the church is I wonder if they are the same thing… so I understand why others question it too.

keep in mind I never said The Catholic church is wrong… I just question if its the only church.

Who is this teacher you are talking about…

His name is Roger Manrique, M. A. in Theology and Sacred Scripture, at The Blessed Trinity Catholic Church in Orlando FL. A Roman Catholic Church in the Diocese of Orlando.

… you either accept what the church teaches or you don’t.

which church?

 

[Gorgias]

it just seems the more I learn about the history of The Catholic church… and understand what the church is I wonder if they are the same thing

OK – so, at the very least, looking at it historically, it would seem reasonable to say that the Church that Jesus founded – “what the church is”, as you say – has certain characteristics, right? What characteristics would you say that they would be?

 

[annad347]

OK – so, at the very least, looking at it historically, it would seem reasonable to say that the Church that Jesus founded – “what the church is”, as you say – has certain characteristics, right? What characteristics would you say that they would be?

humility…

 

[Justin_Mary]

Its getting hard to explain what I’m trying to say without sounding like I don’t believe Jesus Christ said to Peter, you are the stone on which I will build my church… or that I don’t have faith in the bible, the church… I just understand how people will question if that church is called The Catholic church.

I understand exactly what you are saying. The Church Jesus built includes all legitimate forms of Christianity.

You may “feel” called to express your faith through one of these legitimate forms.

I understand God is working in us. Whether we are in the Church or not. & he’s done great things through many people outside the Church. & I believe many of those people will be in heaven. I pray for the souls of my grandmother & her sister every day because I believe that.

But I’m thoroughly convinced what pleases God the most is offering him his Son in the Eucharist of the Catholic Mass.

I asked you what do you know of liturgy. The New Testament, inspired by God came from the Church’s liturgy… inspired by God.

 

[annad347]

I asked you what do you know of liturgy.

Yes, I asked why do you ask?

… The New Testament, inspired by God came from the Church’s liturgy… inspired by God.

Shouldn’t that be the other way around? The Church’s liturgy came from words of The New Testament that came from words of the followers of Jesus Christ inspired by God, through the Holy Spirit, which we believe as the truth because of our faith in God, our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior which allowed The Holy Spirit into our hearts, through baptism?

 

[whatistrue]

Shouldn’t that be the other way around?

I don’t think so. The Church existed and practiced the Faith (Liturgy) before the New Testament was completed and codified.