Protestant that agree...

[ncgolf]

I understand your tenacious belief in it, but you must understand that your belief is based only on the authority of your church leadership (which claims it), not the Authority of divine revelation. Heaven is silent.

It is funny that your comments are in itself made as an authority. You are making yourself an authority on what is or is not the true meaning of the Word of God. You offer no alternative as I see it, only I know what you believe isn’t correct. If the Catholic Church does not have the same authority over spiritual matters as Christ does … what does happen. It is not a vacuum. You must offer a response grounded in Scripture. What happened to authority give by Christ to “retain or forgive sins” described in Matthew and John. By your own standards if that authority went away with the death of the first apostles then show it. The Church is nothing more than Christ visible on earth … she posseses nothing other than what Christ left her.

No matter … it will always come down to authority … does the Church have it or not.

Authority makes the world go round as a practical matter. Umpires call people out or safe … the fans don’t. What would happen, using sports, if umpires did not posses the authority to make decisions. Even with the mistakes they make the alternative is worse. Legitimate authority is a basic need for an orderly world. Look at the places where a legitmate lack of authority exists … chaos and confusion ensue. Authority gives people the tools necessary to carry out what is needed in the world.

As Catholics we do not ever seperate Christ from the Church … they are one in the same. The Church **is ** the Body of Christ. When the Church speaks, Christ speaks.

Heaven is only silent because you put your hands over your ears.

 

[mikeledes]

In other words, what you provided me with was only commentary, not “history.” And what you continue to give me is conjecture. Jesus never calls Peter "Chief Shepherd. Peter never refers to himself as "Chief Shepherd, but instead literally refers to Jesus by that title. And the Scriptures reveal only one “Head of the church” (either on earth or in heaven) and that’s Christ Himself (1 Pet. 5:4; Col. 1:18).

I understand your tenacious belief in it, but you must understand that your belief is based only on the authority of your church leadership (which claims it), not the Authority of divine revelation. Heaven is silent.

Matthew 16:18-19

**18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." **

Mark 16:7

**7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’" **

Why does the angel single out Peter?

Luke 22:31-32

**31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;
32but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." **

Why does Jesus single out Peter?

John 21:15-18

**15So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You " He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”
16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.
18"Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” **

Sheep here clearly means the entire Christian community (i.e. the universal church) and he singles out Peter and tells him to shepherd and tend His church. The fact that - despite the presence of the other disciples - Peter is consistently singled out by Jesus and and an angel means that Peter plays a unique role and this role is clearly established in Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-18.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

Sheep here clearly means the entire Christian community (i.e. the universal church) and he singles out Peter and tells him to shepherd and tend His church. The fact that - despite the presence of the other disciples - Peter is consistently singled out by Jesus and and an angel means that Peter plays a unique role and this role is clearly established in Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-18.

God Bless,
Michael

Yet Peter’s “roll” is never called “Chief Shepherd” or “Head of the church on earth.” Peter never refers to himself as “Chief Shepherd,” but he himself calls Christ “the Chief Shepherd.” And according to Apostolic teaching, only Christ Himself is called “Head of the church.”

I thoroughly understand you believe what you wrote about Peter, but YOU must understand your conclusions are not supported by divine revelation (unless you can prove otherwise), but are based on the subsequent teachings/interpretations of those who directly benefit from them. Those who claim their ecclesiastical authority upon those post-Apostolic interpretations.

 

[moondweller]

It is funny that your comments are in itself made as an authority. You are making yourself an authority on what is or is not the true meaning of the Word of God.

One does not need authority to determine what Scripture doesn’t teach.

You offer no alternative as I see it, only I know what you believe isn’t correct.

Alternative? The alternative would be to ignore the Scriptures and simply go with the claims of mere men.

If the Catholic Church does not have the same authority over spiritual matters as Christ does … what does happen. It is not a vacuum. You must offer a response grounded in Scripture. What happened to authority give by Christ to “retain or forgive sins” described in Matthew and John. By your own standards if that authority went away with the death of the first apostles then show it. The Church is nothing more than Christ visible on earth … she posseses nothing other than what Christ left her.

No matter … it will always come down to authority … does the Church have it or not.

You mean does the Roman church have it or not? It claims its authority on Peter. So, it really comes down to whether or not Peter was actually given such earthly authority by Christ: “Chief Shepherd” & "Head of the chruch on earth (Vicar of Christ). Scripture doesn’t support it. What other alternative am I suppose to offer? If I offered another alternative THEN I would be making myself an authority. But rather I humbly submit to the Word of God.

 

[moondweller]

As Catholics we do not ever seperate Christ from the Church … they are one in the same. The Church **is ** the Body of Christ. When the Church speaks, Christ speaks.

Well, physically you cannot. Otherwise you’d have to deny the incarnation. Christ is no more physically the church and the church physically Him than I am physically you and you are physically me.

Spiritually speaking, yes Christ and the church are “one body.” He being “the head” of the body (Col. 1:18). The spiritual “body of Christ” is never freakishly portrayed in Scripture as two-headed. Only in fictional writings do bodies have mulitple heads.

Heaven is only silent because you put your hands over your ears.

One cannot silence heaven in such a way. God has revealed it or He has not.

 

[c659smith]

Moondweller.

There are more facts when it comes to Peter but let’s start out here.

The parable of the tenant farmers.

Simon’s name was changed by Christ to Peter and Jesus states many times about him being the rock or stone however you wish to translate.

Now at the end of the parable
Jesus states the meaning of the parable

'the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." Church (The Jews and those aganist Jesus’s Church)

'The rejection of Peter as the stone.

Everyone who falls on that stone will be dashed to pieces;and will crush anyone on whom it falls

 

[mikeledes]

Yet Peter’s “roll” is never called “Chief Shepherd” or “Head of the church on earth.” Peter never refers to himself as “Chief Shepherd,” but he himself calls Christ “the Chief Shepherd.” And according to Apostolic teaching, only Christ Himself is called “Head of the church.”

I thoroughly understand you believe what you wrote about Peter, but YOU must understand your conclusions are not supported by divine revelation (unless you can prove otherwise), but are based on the subsequent teachings/interpretations of those who directly benefit from them. Those who claim their ecclesiastical authority upon those post-Apostolic interpretations.

God is not referred to as “Trinity” or the “Triune God” and yet it’s understood that He is Trinity. Christ is the Chief Shepherd because He is above Peter and the apostles. You have yet to explain why Peter is singled out in the verses I listed.

God bless,
Michael

 

[c659smith]

moondweller,

You are correct and you are getting there, the church is Spititually the Body and as such is infallible.

Sacred Scripture
Sacred Teachings
Sacred Traditions

However in the Catholic Church you can sit,kneel, and pray before Christ.

You may Eat and Drink his Body and Blood

For we believe in what Christ taught and do not read into any statements.

Go into an Adoration Chapel in a Catholic Church

Just sit there and ask Him what He thinks?

Prayer is a two way conversation do not be surprised He may answer you.

Jesus is in my Church Body,Bood, Soul, and Divinity

 

[jmcrae]

Yet Peter’s “roll” is never called “Chief Shepherd” or “Head of the church on earth.”

So, what would you call it? It’s obvious in the Scriptures that Peter is the man in charge, regardless of what name you give it.

 

[ncgolf]

One does not need authority to determine what Scripture doesn’t teach.

Yes you do … though you may not want to admit it … the authority is yourself. What isn’t specifically mentioned in Scripture … cloning, end of life issues … the list could go on. So then if it isnt specifically mentioned in Scripture then Scripture has no bearing on the issue? This is why authority so important in helping deal with modern complex ehtical issues. There are right ways and wrong ways in light of Christ’s teachings to address these … what do you do now?

The alternative would be to ignore the Scriptures and simply go with the claims of mere men.

Mere men … I love that … the apostles would tend to agree but who else but Adam was breathed on by God directly? The apostles … mere men yes but sanctified by God like no other group in history. When God breathes on you … you cannot be the same. You are indeed “set apart”. Do not cofuse mere with small but mere in the way C.S Lewis uses it in title of his book “Mere Christinanity.” When those mere men speak … we should listen.

You mean does the Roman church have it or not? It claims its authority on Peter. So, it really comes down to whether or not Peter was actually given such earthly authority by Christ: “Chief Shepherd” & "Head of the chruch on earth (Vicar of Christ). Scripture doesn’t support it. What other alternative am I suppose to offer? If I offered another alternative THEN I would be making myself an authority. But rather I humbly submit to the Word of God.

That is what a protester cannot do … submit. That is why they protest. If you think Peter wasn’t given authority you must be reading another Bible. They were given the ability to “bind and loose”. Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23 “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained.” Please don’t tell me it is symoblic forgiveness … If that is not authority I don’t know what would qualify … only God has the power to forgive and yet it was given. “Given the keys to the Kingdom” … that is not authority. Who would you give keys to your house to … somebody you would or would not trust? Authority was most surely given … the question you can ask is … can that authority be transferred … can Peter (he being the one we know receiving it) pass this to subsequent men who did not receive this order directly by Christ. Why would Christ give these gifts only to have it die out with John’s passing? If he could … then you have apostolic succession etc. etc., if not the Church died around the year 100 … but if it did die … the authority to set the Canon was not legitimate which means the Scripture inside cannot be trusted to be complete …
so in my opinion you cannot humbly submit to the Word of God unless you know for sure that it is the Word of God …you have to trust someone.

 

[ncgolf]

God has revealed it or He has not.

No, this is not the question … do not put the onus on God … God has revealed it … the question is … Where can I discern God’s revelation to man most completely. That is the question needing answering.

 

[c659smith]

Moondweller,

If one reads the scripture there are many passages that are clear there are others that we all need help with.

Why does Matthew go through the geneolgy of Jesus in his first Chapter?

Explain to me the significance.

Not a tricky question just want to see if you know what matthew was doing.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller.

There are more facts when it comes to Peter but let’s start out here.

The parable of the tenant farmers.

Simon’s name was changed by Christ to Peter and Jesus states many times about him being the rock or stone however you wish to translate.

Now at the end of the parable
Jesus states the meaning of the parable

'the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." Church (The Jews and those aganist Jesus’s Church)

'The rejection of Peter as the stone.

Everyone who falls on that stone will be dashed to pieces;and will crush anyone on whom it falls

Wow. You’re the first one I’ve run into that interprets the “corner stone” as Peter.

Have you read:Acts 4:10-12 "…let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by this {name} this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, {but} which became the chief corner {stone.} And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."There’s your interpretation. And LOOK!! It’s Peter himself who interprets who the stone is for you.

And in 1 Pet. 5:4 Peter himself calls Jesus the “Chief Shepherd” (not himself). But you insist that Peter is. Here in Acts 4 Peter calls Jesus the “chief corner stone,” but you insist Peter is. The Scriptures testify against you Mr. Smith.

For we believe in what Christ taught and do not read into any statements.

Really!! I’ve been presented with many passages where you read into them that Jesus appointed Peter “Chief Shepherd” and His “vicar on earth.”

Why does Matthew go through the geneolgy of Jesus in his first Chapter? Explain to me the significance.

I’ve explained other things to you at your request, Mr. Smith. And you replied with “mumbo jumbo” and “I don’t care what you say.” I’m sure you already have the significance of Matthew’s genealogy provided for you. However, if Jesus doesn’t appoint Peter “Chief Shepherd” and “Vicar of Christ on earth” in those verses, then they bear no real significant value to the debate at hand.

 

[moondweller]

God is not referred to as “Trinity” or the “Triune God” and yet it’s understood that He is Trinity. Christ is the Chief Shepherd because He is above Peter and the apostles. You have yet to explain why Peter is singled out in the verses I listed.

God bless,
Michael

Actually, it’s you who needs to show me in those verses where Christ actually appoints Peter “Chief Shepherd.”

 

[moondweller]

So, what would you call it? It’s obvious in the Scriptures that Peter is the man in charge, regardless of what name you give it.

It’s obvious in the Scriptures that Peter had the authority of an Apostle, but “the man in charge?” Hardly obvious. The hierarchy of the Roman church bequeathed (posthumously) Peter the titles “Chief Shepherd” and "Vicar of Christ on earth," and then postulated its own authority from him. But I have yet to find where Jesus Himself ever conferred such authority on Peter. Here lies the root problem.

 

[moondweller]

The apostles … mere men yes but sanctified by God like no other group in history. When God breathes on you … you cannot be the same. You are indeed “set apart”.

As are all men who believe in Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (regenerated). They’re never the same.

Do not cofuse mere with small but mere in the way C.S Lewis uses it in title of his book “Mere Christinanity.” When those mere men speak … we should listen.

I wasn’t talking about the Apostles. None of them referred to Peter as “Chief Shepherd” or “Head of the church.” If they did, then I would certainly listen. But then it would still have to be proved that such authority was ever intended to be passed on to so-called “successors” of his. But first the former must be proved, for without that proof the latter is superfluous.

That is what a protester cannot do … submit. That is why they protest. If you think Peter wasn’t given authority you must be reading another Bible. They were given the ability to “bind and loose”. Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23 “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Thank you for saying “They.” I don’t question the authority of the Apostles. I said the Roman church claims its authority on Peter, so it comes down to whether or not Peter was actually given such earthly authority by Christ. Neither the other Apostles or the Scriptures support such a unique authority bestowed upon him.

No, this is not the question … do not put the onus on God … God has revealed it … the question is … Where can I discern God’s revelation to man most completely. That is the question needing answering.

No it’s not. The question is whether or not Christ actually conferred on Peter the titles of “Chief Shepherd” and “Head of the church” on earth. I’ve yet to find any divine revelation which supports it. The only place I read of them is in the literature supplied by those who claim to posses the authority of those titles after him. Highly suspicious, I’d say.

 

[ncgolf]

As are all men who believe in Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (regenerated). They’re never the same.I wasn’t talking about the Apostles. None of them referred to Peter as “Chief Shepherd” or “Head of the church.” If they did, then I would certainly listen. But then it would still have to be proved that such authority was ever intended to be passed on to so-called “successors” of his. But first the former must be proved, for without that proof the latter is superfluous.Thank you for saying “They.” I don’t question the authority of the Apostles. I said the Roman church claims its authority on Peter, so it comes down to whether or not Peter was actually given such earthly authority by Christ. Neither the other Apostles or the Scriptures support such a unique authority bestowed upon him.No it’s not. The question is whether or not Christ actually conferred on Peter the titles of “Chief Shepherd” and “Head of the church” on earth. I’ve yet to find any divine revelation which supports it. The only place I read of them is in the literature supplied by those who claim to posses the authority of those titles after him. Highly suspicious, I’d say.

Okay … I want to take a step back … let me ask then … what significance do these passages have.
Tell me what is happening here.

Jesus giving Peter the authority to bind and loose (both heaven and earth). Matthew 16:18-20. What is binding and loosing? Is this power or authority? What on earth could Peter do that heaven itself would be bound to? Why only Peter?

Jesus giving the Apostles the ability to forgive sins. John 20:22-23. What is Jesus saying about the power the disciples now have? What is the significance of being breathed on?

Jesus telling Peter to “Feed my lambs”,“Tend my sheep”,“Feed my sheep”. John 21. Why does Jesus use the same imagery in giving Peter instruction as Jesus used to refer to himself … “I am the Good Shepard”?

I ask these because Jesus didn’t seem to waste words. He could say and mean a whole lot in a few sentences.

 

[moondweller]

Okay … I want to take a step back … let me ask then … what significance do these passages have.
Tell me what is happening here.

Jesus giving Peter the authority to bind and loose (both heaven and earth). Matthew 16:18-20. What is binding and loosing? Is this power or authority? What on earth could Peter do that heaven itself would be bound to? Why only Peter?

It wasn’t only Peter (see Matt. 18:18). Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and we see he was privileged to begin preaching the message of salvation and the proclamation of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone first to the Jews (Acts 2) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

Jesus giving the Apostles the ability to forgive sins. John 20:22-23. What is Jesus saying about the power the disciples now have? What is the significance of being breathed on?

Through the preaching of the gospel message of the cross. Do you read anywhere in Scripture where any Apostle ever personally absolved anyone’s sins?

Jesus telling Peter to “Feed my lambs”,“Tend my sheep”,“Feed my sheep”. John 21. Why does Jesus use the same imagery in giving Peter instruction as Jesus used to refer to himself … “I am the Good Shepard”?

As I said previously, “feed” is a verb not a noun. Jesus calls Himself “The Good Shepherd” (never Peter), and Peter himself calls Jesus “The Chief Shepherd” and numbers himself as just one of the shepherds of sheep (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

I ask these because Jesus didn’t seem to waste words. He could say and mean a whole lot in a few sentences.

You’re right. So where do you see Him calling Peter “Chief Shepherd” and “Head of the church on earth?” If He doesn’t, then its men who have wasted those words on Peter.

 

[ncgolf]

It wasn’t only Peter (see Matt. 18:18). Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and we see he was privileged to begin preaching the message of salvation and the proclamation of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone first to the Jews (Acts 2) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

You didnt answer the question … what is binding and loosing. The verse specifically mentions binding and loosing.

Through the preaching of the gospel message of the cross. Do you read anywhere in Scripture where any Apostle ever personally absolved anyone’s sins?

You then deny the power was given … it specifically says whose sins “YOU” forgive are forgiven and whose sins “YOU” retain are retained. This sure sounds like this forgiveness thing will happen in the future … it is not past tense, it is not even Christ forgiving them but Christ saying you will forgive sins and if you do they will be forgiven. I do not understand what is so hard about that statement. It is not a large leap in logic to use what was given to you. If you were given that power … to forgive sins like Christ what would you do with it … sit on it.
Was the ability to forgive sins given to the apostles by Christ. Yes/No.
I think there are 3 outcomes to this question based on your past responses.

1. Yes, but they never used it.
2. Yes, and they did use it.
3. No, it was never given so not used.

1 says yes ability given but it is undocumented in its use … I think this is what you will say but woe to those who bury the gifts given to them. Christ always admonishes those not using what has been given to the fullest.
2. Power given and used. Why would the apostles not use the gifts given by Christ himself.
3. No the ability was not given but this contradicts scripture directly.

As I said previously, “feed” is a verb not a noun. Jesus calls Himself “The Good Shepherd” (never Peter), and Peter himself calls Jesus “The Chief Shepherd” and numbers himself as just one of the shepherds of sheep (1 Pet. 5:1-4).You’re right. So where do you see Him calling Peter “Chief Shepherd” and “Head of the church on earth?” If He doesn’t, then its men who have wasted those words on Peter.

I guess you missed the point … Peter’s words mention Prebyster … “those officially appointed as leaders and teachers in the Christian community” Notes to Peter 5:1 NAB. How is one officially a Prebyster in Peter’s time. Who could bestow the authority to be an official teacher and leader in the Christian community? Only someone who had the authority to do so. It was not Christ since He had already ascended. This sounds strangely like the First Cause argument. To be offically appointed … the appointee would have had to have th ability to do so … and so on and so on. This indicates someone at some point would have had to be able to do this and that those powers could be transferred … if done officially.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, it’s you who needs to show me in those verses where Christ actually appoints Peter “Chief Shepherd.”

John 21:15-19.