Prodigal's Isle

[Eucharisted]

What is it about Judaism that i must (and do not) understand, Eucharisted?

You gotta understand that the Papacy is modeled on the Jewish ruling “class” (hence why there are twelve Apostles to represent the twelve tribes) and that it is based in Scripture - for example, Jesus’ words to Peter. More experienced Catholics can explain it to you, Sock.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, but don’t get the wrong idea. It’s not as though we are spinning in endless circles. There may be a lot of spin being thrown into the dialog, but as far as i’m concerned, the matter of Peter’s authority is sufficiently established. It is, that is, unless Tuk or someone has something more convincing to say on the matter.

Now P7, how do you propose to bridge the gap between Peter’s primary position and the primacy of the papacy?

Clement, and early Church Father, that’s how! Please tell me, what was the date on which Clement was believed to have written this letter?

i know we’re not in circles. We could rather say we seem to move along a spiral.

The date of composition is generally seen around 96. A significantly earlier date has been also proposed.
i am afraid after such an easy question the difficult one is arriving.

 

[pneuma07]

Well you, P7 might be right about a logical fallacy being committed. As far as i can discern, it could be the** fallacy of composition**. That is, the fallacy where the attribute of an individual part of an object is mistakenly transferred to the entire object. An example:The bricks in this building are sturdy. Thus, the building must be sturdy.
The fact that individual bricks are of good design does not support the conclusion that the bridge which contains them are of good design.

In this case you mention, the fallacy might be:God revealed His will to the Apostles. The Apostles were members of the Body of Christ. Thus, God reveals His will to all members of the Body of Christ.
The fact that God reveals His will to certain members of the body of Christ does not support the conclusion that God reveals His will equally to all members of the body of Christ. Is this the point you are making, or do i misunderstand?

You make a very good point IMHaughtyO.

The fallacy I was trying to show is…

Everybody is able to correctly understand Scripture.
Therefore I am able too, and my reading is correct.
If my reading is correct, the others’ reading, differing from my own, are not valid.
Therefore I am the one who has THE valid reading.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Paul C,

**We wrote: *Jerry: *** * The Catholic Faith is true, whatever the status of the Bp. of Rome happens to be. Personally, I do not regard the claims of infallible Papal authority to be well founded (along with some of the minor points of Roman doctrine which are derived from Scholastic speculation), but I’ll “go along for the spiritual ride” with the Catholic Church rather than be shipwrecked in Protestantism (Lutheranism, in my case) or the sects (Baptists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, et alia), whose groups are spiritually dead, devoid of the sacraments as they are, and stuck deep in all kinds of scandalous errors.

The Pope’s primacy is one thing, his supposed infallibility another. I “keep the powder dry” on the latter and bear with it. If the Pope goes seriously awry, one can always resort to a “sedes vacante” argument to explain the situation that he would create*.

***Paul wrote: *** * Note, Jerry, that Papal Infallibility was made doctrine in 1870. In the 139 years since then, it has been invoked exactly once, to declare the assumption of Mary in 1950. It is hardly a power grab by the Popes. After all, the Pope that declared it, never used it. *​

I am not declaring myself against Papal infallibility; I just do not think that it is all that important, however the conciliar-papal politics and wrangling took place to establish it as a doctrine of the Church. If you think about it, the Church for nearly two millenia had had no qualms about asserting its authority before the First Vatican Council decreed Papal infallibility. The Church had the Creeds and Councils of the Church and the magisterium on which to rest its authority. Papal infallibitlity is superfluous and unneeded. The Church did very well long before it was declared. If a Pope ever does pontificate on something so egregious that its very error disproves the Pope’s orthodoxy, one simply can say that such a Pope does not exercise papal authority legitimately (the sedes vacantes “out”).

So, I won’t bother to argue one way or the other about such a relatively weak doctrine; whether it be true or not depends on how Popes since its very late passage in Church history exercise it. Ho-hum! It is not worth all the squabling! Also, any fall of Papal Infallibitlity into disgrace would not prove the truth claims of the Protestants or of the sectaries! In the meantime, popes or no popes, the truth of the Holy Catholic Church stands firm, as it did before Papal Infallibity ever was passed by a late council.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[JRKH]

James:

I haven’t much to say, at the moment, but much to ask. I’m not sure of the inference you are making. Is it this? Jesus commanded the Apostles to obey those who claim to sit in the Seat of Moses, therefore, He was saying that those who claimed to sit in Moses’ Seat spoke for God.

Allow me to refer you to the first line of your post number 590, where you wrote:
The thing about the Chair of Moses is that it belonged to Moses alone. Perhaps Joshua was a successor to Moses (interesting that Jesus is Greek for Joshua) but no one succeeded Joshua.

The point of my posting the reference to Mt 23 was simply to demonstrate that Jesus did not agree with your assertion that the seat of Moses was vacant. If He did He would never had said what He said.

As to was Jesus telling the Apostles to obey the Pharisees? Yes, in so far as what they TAUGHT, and not in how they acted. This Authority of the pharisees, of course, ended with the beginning of the New covenent after Jesus Resurection.

In matters of teaching on the Law, yes, under the Old covenent, the fiathful Jews were to assume that such teaching was in accordance with the Will of God. Of course Jesus goes on to take the “teachers” to task for how and what they taught.

The underlying issue here is a subtle one but important and is mentioned also elswhere in the Gospels where Jesus warns that not many should be teachers for teachers will be called to greater account.
Those who are taught to “believe and do”, and then act, honestly, humbly, and in true obedience, upon those teachings are not going to be judged harshly by God for obeying the rightful authority placed over them. However, those who TEACH had better be sure of what they are teaching, and that it is correct.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I prefer to say it brings clarity to the matter.

But it *does *detract from the idea that he had the authority of a pope. Doesn’t a pope have more authority than a cardinal or bishop? Are you saying that Matthew and John and Paul were as much popes as Peter was? I’m not sure i follow you.

First of all allow me to say that I believe that the “Authority” of the pope has evolved over time. Being the Leader of the Church in 50 AD with a few thousands of souls was considerably different than being the Leader of the Church in 2009 with over 1 Billion souls.
No I don’t think that the others were “just as much popes” (leader) as Peter. Let me ask you something here. Would you agree that in most organizations, large ones I mean, thee is an “inner circle” of people who run them and are pretty much equally qualified? Would you also agree that in most of these organizations there is one person selected to “head up” the organization? This person then, often carries the responsibility for the organization and makes “final decisions” but rarely, if ever acts without the (name removed by moderator)ut and council of the other members of the inner circle.
The same with the Apostles. All twelve were emminently qualified, but it fell to Peter to lead. But not without (name removed by moderator)ut from the others, as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. After Peter’s death another was selected and so forth even to today.

I know we keep using the word “Authority” as though it really means something, but I think we may be in err here and would like to propose a change. What if we substitute the word “responsibility” for authority??The The Bishop has Responsibility for a diocese, and archbishop over an Archdiocese, and so on, But the Pope, he has the responsibility of the Entire Church upon his shoulders. He has this responsibility by virtue of the fact that the entire church Looks to him for Guidance.
Peter was the first, selected by The Father Himself and confirmed by Jesus. The rest were selected by virtue of being elected to the post of “Bishop of Rome”.

Makes sense to me. The 12 Apostles together decided what Jesus intended for them to do, though i don’t think they always correctly understood Jesus’ will, as in the case of Matthias.

But if the Apostles all had equal authority, then would there not be 12 papal successors today, instead of one (or perhaps two, if we consider the Greek Orthodox faith)?

There ARE 12 Apostolic Successors plus many more. There is only one line of successors from Peter to today. There may be MANY successors to the Board of directors of a company, but only one line of successors to the OFFICE of CEO.
I don’t know If my analogy is clear, but I hope it works.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I gather He was none too happy with the ones who claimed to sit in Moses’ Seat. What did He call them?

• Hypocrites
• Sons of hell
• Blind guides
• Filthy on the inside
• Whicked
• Walking dead
• Murderers
• Snakes
• Hell bound

Impressive isn’t it. Yet Jesus told the faithful Jew to “Do and Observe” all that they tell you. What does this say about how Jesus views the dishonest teacher and how He views the Honest Follower of God and God’s duly appointed (but flawed) authorities?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yes, but don’t get the wrong idea. It’s not as though we are spinning in endless circles. There may be a lot of spin being thrown into the dialog, but as far as i’m concerned, the matter of Peter’s authority is sufficiently established. It is, that is, unless Tuk or someone has something more convincing to say on the matter.

Now P7, how do you propose to bridge the gap between Peter’s primary position and the primacy of the papacy?

Clement, and early Church Father, that’s how! Please tell me, what was the date on which Clement was believed to have written this letter?

The source I have dates Clement frm between 80 and 140 AD.

Also in the Book, “Four Witnesses”, Clement was a Bishop of the Church while John was still alive, and would have been a young man of 20 or 30 at the time of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul at Rome.He was also a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch (They were nearly the same age).

Peace
James

 

[michaelsmth626]

You seem to think that Paul acted outside the authority of the other Apostles. He did not. Following his conversion on the road to Damascus, he was baptized into the Church by Ananius. (Acts 9). In Acts 11 we find that Barnabus enlisted Paul to help preach in Antioch. After that, still in Acts 11, he was sent by the Church along with Barnabus to carry financial relief from Antioch to Jerusalem. In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabus are sent by the Church on their missionary trips. In Acts 15, Paul is sent by the leaders of the Antioch Church to Jerusalem to get clarity on how to treat the Gentiles. He is then subsequently sent out to preach again.

Notice also, in Paul’s account in Galatians, how despite his direct calling from Christ, he describes how he went to Peter for instruction. First at the beginning of his ministry, when he spent 15 days with him and then 14 years later at the Council of Jerusalem, where he says in Galatians 2:
1Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

This is not to say that Paul was not an Apostle, he most certainly was. But this is to show that he was under the jurisdiction of the Church led by St. Peter the entire time. Using Paul as an example of someone outside the Church, as you yourself are, is simply without merit.

I believe the posters point was that Paul was called and commissioned by Jesus before the actions taken after the fact, like being baptized by Ananius, or receiving approval from the other apostles. His election and mission were secured at the moment of his conversion, the following formalities that are held up as evidence for church authority are of no value in light of Christs choosing. That I believe is the posters implication. The church does not call and appoint teachers and prophets Jesus does. The greatest speaker, teacher of the new testament did not spend three years walking and listening to Jesus personally, he didn’t have the first communion with Him, he did not receive the Spirit at Pentecost, but yet he posed it, in complete fullness. I doubt the apostles could have added to his knowledge of the scriptures, but the power of the Spirit completely changed everything he ever thought he knew the Torah said.

Saying - You seem to think that Paul acted outside the authority of the other Apostles.
May be better said - The Apostles did not act outside the authority of Gods election.
So if God can call to those outside the body of believers then, as He did Paul why can’t this happen everywhere or anywhere today? The popular world view today is that Christians are narrow minded, by believing that Jesus is the only way to establish a relationship with God, Catholics take it another step, that this Jesus can only be found threw their church. The conversion of Paul is a fine example of, this may not be the case.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Impressive isn’t it. Yet Jesus told the faithful Jew to “Do and Observe” all that they tell you. What does this say about how Jesus views the dishonest teacher and how He views the Honest Follower of God and God’s duly appointed (but flawed) authorities?

Peace
James

I think it says it would be be near impossible to know what was fact or fiction in their teachings.
But they did hold the arm of enforcement over the people, stoning was the price they most often paid for not obeying the Pharisees, Rome did not interfere with this internal theocracy.
What do you suppose Jesus was indicating about there teachings that needed to be observed?
Or what was it that Jesus did not accuse them of that should have been followed?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t get this. Are you arguing with Scripture, which is inspired and said that Matthias was Judas’ replacement?

PC:

I’m agreeing with Sacred Scripture, for the ancient historian Luke writes that the Apostles chose Matthias. But he does NOT say that God told them to choose Matthias, nor that God approved of their choice. But of Paul, Jesus said: “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

(Acts 9:15-16)
And i know i’m poking fun at their choice, but it’s obvious that God’s actual choice was Paul, not Matthias, isn’t it?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[paul_c]

I believe the posters point was that Paul was called and commissioned by Jesus before the actions taken after the fact, like being baptized by Ananius, or receiving approval from the other apostles. His election and mission were secured at the moment of his conversion, the following formalities that are held up as evidence for church authority are of no value in light of Christs choosing. That I believe is the posters implication. The church does not call and appoint teachers and prophets Jesus does. The greatest speaker, teacher of the new testament did not spend three years walking and listening to Jesus personally, he didn’t have the first communion with Him, he did not receive the Spirit at Pentecost, but yet he posed it, in complete fullness. I doubt the apostles could have added to his knowledge of the scriptures, but the power of the Spirit completely changed everything he ever thought he knew the Torah said.

Saying - You seem to think that Paul acted outside the authority of the other Apostles.
May be better said - The Apostles did not act outside the authority of Gods election.
So if God can call to those outside the body of believers then, as He did Paul why can’t this happen everywhere or anywhere today? The popular world view today is that Christians are narrow minded, by believing that Jesus is the only way to establish a relationship with God, Catholics take it another step, that this Jesus can only be found threw their church. The conversion of Paul is a fine example of, this may not be the case.

Jesus commissioned Paul directly, sure enough and Paul had a tremendous role in the development of the Church, for his theology, for his missionary work and maybe most of all because he was a highly visible convert from persecuter to defender of the faith. But you are wrong to say Jesus sets up people from outside the church using Paul as an example. In fact, Jesus set it up to have Paul recieved into the church. Jesus also appeared to Ananias, representing the Church in Damascus, one the people that Saul was probably intent on arresting, and had Ananias go to Paul on Straight Street, cure him of his blindness and bring him into the Church through Baptism. Note, Jesus also told St. Paul that this would happen in a vision before it actually occured. So as you can see, Jesus directly and personally interceeded to bring Paul into the church, prior to his ministry. another sign that the Catholic Church is the one true Faith. This is all covered in Acts 9.

God frequrently calls people from outside the Catholic Faith, that is the nature of conversion. But you can not and will not be able to identify a case where he called to someone and had them oppose his church. That would be hugely contradictory to Christ’s promise to the Church to defend it and be with it to the end of the age. Those that oppose the Church and its teachings are not from God.

 

[paul_c]

PC:

I’m agreeing with Sacred Scripture, for the ancient historian Luke writes that the Apostles chose Matthias. But he does NOT say that God told them to choose Matthias, nor that God approved of their choice. But of Paul, Jesus said: “This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

(Acts 9:15-16)
And i know i’m poking fun at their choice, but it’s obvious that God’s actual choice was Paul, not Matthias, isn’t it?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ECoDt4t28NA/RtEah_aSwsI/AAAAAAAAABk/xHpOe8Oo-sw/s400/worth1000.jpg

No. Matthias was chosen by lot by God, was he not? it isn’t an either or question, anyway. And don’t denegrate St. Matthias. Only a couple of the Apostles have written accounts of their missionary activities. That doens’t mean they weren’t all productive in carrying out the faith.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. Matthias was chosen by lot by God, was he not? it isn’t an either or question, anyway. And don’t denegrate St. Matthias. Only a couple of the Apostles have written accounts of their missionary activities. That doens’t mean they weren’t all productive in carrying out the faith.

Well PC, perhaps if you explained why you believe Matthias was chosen by God, i’d see things your way. Asking you a few questions might reveal good reasons why i should believe, too! Please let me ask you this:

Do you believe that an Apostle always knows God’s will, and never, ever has any doubt what God wants? Or do you think there are times when he is certain of God’s will, and other times when he can only make a well-educated guess?

 

[JRKH]

I think it says it would be be near impossible to know what was fact or fiction in their teachings.
But they did hold the arm of enforcement over the people, stoning was the price they most often paid for not obeying the Pharisees, Rome did not interfere with this internal theocracy.

This is just the observation that should be considered by us all when we study the teachings of the Church, or read an encyclical etc.
The Church is the legitimate authority which has been placed over us by Jesus.
The doctrinal teachings of the Church are not promulgated willy-nilly but carefully and prayerfully constructed.
For us, as the faithful to pick and choose for ourselves which teachings to follow and which to ignore is tantamount to what you say above. It would be near inmossible for us to determine which is “fact or fiction.”

What do you suppose Jesus was indicating about there teachings that needed to be observed?
Or what was it that Jesus did not accuse them of that should have been followed?

Not sure I folow, but Jesus was clearly telling the teachers that they must stop getting hung up on details and stop being puffed up with themselves. Look not to the “observance” of the details of the Law, but to the Justice that underpins the Law.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Well PC, perhaps if you explained why you believe Matthias was chosen by God, i’d see things your way. Asking you a few questions might reveal good reasons why i should believe, too!

At the time of Mathias selection, there were a two names put forward. At this point the Apostles, “Cast Lots” to determine who would be selected. At that time, casting lots was an excepted way of “Leaving it up to God”. Therefore, “God” made the selection of Mathias.

Peace
James

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You gotta understand that the Papacy is modeled on the Jewish ruling “class” (hence why there are twelve Apostles to represent the twelve tribes) and that it is based in Scripture - for example, Jesus’ words to Peter. More experienced Catholics can explain it to you, Sock.

If i’m a sock, i’d have to admit i’m a smelly one!

http://p-userpic.livejournal.com/83987316/3559093

So by saying “more experienced Catholics can explain it to you” do you mean that you cannot explain it to me?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

i know we’re not in circles. We could rather say we seem to move along a spiral.

The date of composition is generally seen around 96. A significantly earlier date has been also proposed.
i am afraid after such an easy question the difficult one is arriving.

And in the line of succession, which Pope was Clement? Second, third, fourth?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You make a very good point IMHaughtyO.

The fallacy I was trying to show is…

Everybody is able to correctly understand Scripture.
Therefore I am able too, and my reading is correct.
If my reading is correct, the others’ reading, differing from my own, are not valid.
Therefore I am the one who has THE valid reading.

You make a valid point, P7.



And i spent several weeks in another discussion thread trying to nail down just what is the difference between spiritual discernment and spiritual deception, and how one can know he has contacted one or the other. Perhaps i gave up on that dialog too soon. So are you saying that God reveals wisdom of His will to only a select few? If so, who are these few?

 

[JRKH]

You make a valid point, P7.



And i spent several weeks in another discussion thread trying to nail down just what is the difference between spiritual discernment and spiritual deception, and how one can know he has contacted one or the other. Perhaps i gave up on that dialog too soon. So are you saying that God reveals wisdom of His will to only a select few? If so, who are these few?

Soc4Jesus,
On discernment etc. May I recommend the Book “The Fulfillment of All Desire”. Well worth the read.

Peace
James