One major problem we are going to have is you are not quoting the King James Bible, which you do not have to by an means. As a Roman Catholic, it would not be expected. But, is my exegesis bad if you are quoting a Bible that says something completely different than mine? It appears the same experiences that I have in person when debating others who use another Bible, we are at a stand still because of this.
**You are right. I am quoting the Douay Rheims Bible. Would it be better if I quoted the King Charlie Bible or the George Bush Bible? I prefer to quote a Bible that doesn’t have a false king attached to the name. Plus it is correct. But that is another thread.
The Holy Bible
Old Testament First Published 1609 by the English College at Douay
New Testament First Published 1582 by the English College at Rheims
Revised and Annotated 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner**
I also made the comment about bones because it is my recollection, and I have not studied the history extensively in this particular matter, that Catholics have defiled the graves of the apostles and other “saints” and ripped bones off their dead corpses and used them as “relics”. If I am incorrect that graves have been defiled, I want to be corrected. I, of course, do not want to accuse people of digging up dead people if I am indeed wrong.
**There were people who tried to get saints bones and others to sell and make profit. That isn’t Catholic. Those are called thieves. **
I am curious as to the support about your statement that Paul is under Peter’s authority. Please elaborate on that.
**Sure. Peter had supremacy over the Church on Earth through Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Look at Isa 22:22-23
**22:22. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. ****
22:23. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.
Now look at Matt 16:18
16:18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
So how did Peter and the rest understand what Jesus was saying? well they were jews after all. Jesus referred a lot to the OT so they would understand. Did they understand that Peter held this position? yes. Look at Acts 1 when Peter picks Matthias:
1:15. In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
So either Jesus meant what he said or Jesus is a liar. I don’t believe Jesus is capable of being a liar. Do you?
I will ask another question, what is the revelation of the mystery? Please use verses only from the Bible, even if it is the Roman Catholic Bible.
How was the revelation of the Mystery made manifest? Through the Scripture and the prophets.
As far as rightly dividing, it is straight from God through the Apostle Paul. I have no choice not to. Any more than you can forget your favorite verse, which if like most Roman Catholics would be in the 16th chapter of the book of Matthew.
**Ahh… not only Matthew 16.
John
21:17. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
Feed my sheep… Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
Jesus was the good shepard. right?
I love St. Paul and St. Peter. Many people do try to rob Peter to pay Paul and vice versa. That just isn’t right. **
That is the area we differ on. I am sure you are familiar with the differing streams from which they come.=jonfan;2065166
You are right. I am quoting the Douay Rheims Bible. Would it be better if I quoted the King Charlie Bible or the George Bush Bible? I prefer to quote a Bible that doesn’t have a false king attached to the name. Plus it is correct. But that is another thread.
The Holy Bible
Old Testament First Published 1609 by the English College at Douay
New Testament First Published 1582 by the English College at Rheims
Revised and Annotated 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner
A quote from New AdventThere were people who tried to get saints bones and others to sell and make profit. That isn’t Catholic. Those are called thieves.
Another quoteRelics
The word relics comes from the Latin reliquiae (the counterpart of the Greek leipsana) which already before the propagation of Christianity was used in its modern sense, viz., of some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint.
*The teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ—which bodies were the living members of Christ and ‘the temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men,/*QUOTE]
It really is simple. People are buried. Pope John Paul is buried. Would it be wrong to dig up John Paul to take some of his bones to venerate? The point isnt even what theives did, is it? Its what an institution CONDONED by taking these items and allowin them to be venerated instead of reburied. What other religion takes its bones off of its deceased and venerates them?
You have proved nothing with your quote from the Old Testament and you know it, in fact, it proves a dispensational argument because of the temporary nature of the key. What happened to the key after this passage in the Old Testament? Who had it next? For how long? It is a wonderful foreshadowing of the temporary nature of Peterine authority prior to the system of leadership given in Paul’s letters for the new dispensation.
The old, “well you are calling Jesus a liar if you do not agree with my theology argument” will not hold water. Its always a sign of desperation and heavens, we have just started this discussion!
You did not answer my question, what is the revelation of the mystery?
Do not Peter against Paul, I am not. I will tell you that early on that Peter refers to Paul’s letters as scripture. Unless you do not believe Peter wrote the book attributed to him. So much for the discernment of Trent if that is the case.
A quote from New Advent
Another quote
*The teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ—which bodies were the living members of Christ and ‘the temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men,/*QUOTE]
Did you care to read the rest of that paragraph?
and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, **so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them." Further, the council insists that “in the invocation of saints the veneration of relics and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed and all filthy lucre abolished.” Again, “the visitation of relics must not be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness.” To secure a proper cheek upon abuses of this kind, “no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless the bishop of the diocese has taken cognizance and approved thereof.” Moreover, the bishop, in all these matters, is directed to obtain accurate information to take council with theologians and pious men, and in cases of doubt or exceptional difficulty to submit the matter to the sentence of the metropolitan and other bishops of the province, “yet so that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the Holy See.” Anway once again a different topic. **
And what does this remark mean?Yes, another thread, if you do not stay on topic we have a self proclaimed moderator to help the process.
DISCUSSION FORUMS
*]Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.