scripture question

[Radical]

To say that all churches have been given the same thing that Peter was is just a blaten lie.

Well at least it ain’t blatant. Here is what you seem to be claiming:

a) Peter is given some sort of special authority that is not also given to the other apostles. (This is possible, but not certain. )

b) That special authority was passed onto the bishop of Rome. (History says that it is doubtful that Rome had a singular bishop at the time that Peter could have been at Rome. You presume that this authority was transferable and that it was transfered only to the bishop of Rome as opposed to the other churches established or visited by Peter or as opposed to the entire Christian community that was unified through the Spirit. I am not prepared to accept those presumptions on the basis that “Rome says so”…and I am pleased to note that I can easily find support for my rejection of your presumptions in the works of modern Roman Catholic scholars.)

c) That the special authority was never lost by the bishopric of Rome even when many of the bishops of Rome were entirely unqualified to be a bishop/overseer as dictated by the requirements of scripture. (Too much of a stretch)

As I mentioned earlier, you are only trying to nullify the Catholic Church’s authority.

I see is no need to nullify the authority that you claim for your church b/c it doesn’t exist.

And, whether you like this response or not, you are also saying that Jesus made a big mistake handing the keys to Heaven to such a dingbat as Kephas.

No I am saying that you and Rome have made the mistake by claiming that the bishop of Rome possesses something that doesn’t even exist…

Who cares about an argument.

Apparently God b/c he included a record of those arguments in scripture.

People argue all the time.

Tis sad, but true…

 

[Radical]

I’m sorry, but you never responded to my post (#100).

sorry…I’ll make that right

In each one of these passages the point is to remind them they are servants above all else, to the point of being childlike. Even Christ who was greater than all, reminded them He was a servant among men.

agreed

The point is not to solve their argument or to appoint a greater one, but to have them remember God is the greater, they are but servants of God.

Here’s the thing. If we are to understand the “keys” passage as establishing Petrine supremacy, why is there still this argument afterwards? Why doesn’t Christ answer, “Well Peter is supreme of course, but you are all to be servants”? That Peter was supposedly appointed to be the “Vicar of Christ” on earth and that the disciples are still arguing about “who is the greatest” just doesn’t pass the smell test.

It does not take away the fact that Christ entrusted the Church to Peter and in doing so made Peter quite aware (the speech about binding and loosing) that the Church came first, not his status in the Church.

Perhaps that is b/c it is not a “fact’. It is a matter of opinion that the “keys” were more than the power to bind and to loose (which was also given to the other disciples and to the church at large) and that Peter held a supreme position.

Now, you’ve stated your position is that if Christ did not choose who was “the greatest” among them, then he must not have chosen a successor.

I think that I would have said that if Jesus failed to specify who was the greatest, then it is unlikely that he had chosen a successor….it is also noteworthy that nowhere (absolutely nowhere) does Jesus mention a successor. This is something that is inferred…and not surprisingly, for the benefit of those that make the inference.

That is not the case because his successor clearly would NOT have been “the greatest” among them when he did not see himself in that light and did not impart the idea that one of them was greater than the other.

This is at odds with the first quote (above) from you. Jesus was greatest even though he came as a servant. His alleged successor would have also been the greatest (in the manner contested by the disciples) even though this successor should continue as the greatest of servants.

 

[happilycatholic]

b) That special authority was passed onto the bishop of Rome. (History says that it is doubtful that Rome had a singular bishop at the time that Peter could have been at Rome. You presume that this authority was transferable and that it was transfered only to the bishop of Rome as opposed to the other churches established or visited by Peter or as opposed to the entire Christian community that was unified through the Spirit. I am not prepared to accept those presumptions on the basis that "Rome says so

"…and I am pleased to note that I can easily find support for my rejection of your presumptions in the works of modern Roman Catholic scholars.)

Let’s address this one and in particular the part bolded.

History will “say” a lot of things. You will need to look at the history of the subject entity which you are disputing, not it’s adversaries. The Church has clear documentation on the merits of many, many Saints and Bishops alike such as the Didache (65-80 A.D.) to prove you incorrect. No matter who wrote it, it obviously was written by a Christian of the time. Or maybe the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (ca 150)

You are studing a certain perspective of history. Maybe even your own perspective.

If I study the history of WICCA it will say that no God ever existed. If I study the history of atheism it will say the same.

Who’s history are you studying? Try studying Christian history.

 

[happilycatholic]

Here’s the thing. If we are to understand the “keys” passage as establishing Petrine supremacy, why is there still this argument afterwards? Why doesn’t Christ answer, “Well Peter is supreme of course, but you are all to be servants”? That Peter was supposedly appointed to be the “Vicar of Christ” on earth and that the disciples are still arguing about “who is the greatest” just doesn’t pass the smell test.

No, it is you who has the need to put a label on whom Christ would choose and then to decide what constitute “the greatest”. Christ did not do this. Christ appears to have given the keys to Peter because he so boldly professed his faith in Christ, but that’s probably not the whole reason because he just happened to be the only one that day who did so and to assume that would be to assume that Christ gave the keys to Peter because no one else spoke up. Nonsense.

Why don’t you just quit trying to psychoanylize Christ and just accept things for what they are? It doesn’t bother me that you are questioning the succession of Peter, but that you are questioning Peter’s appointment at all.

Scripture is pretty plain on that one.

 

[happilycatholic]

Radical is using the “Christ never said Peter was the greatest” argument to try to refute papal supremacy and the supremacy of Peter to the other Apostles.

Does anyone else disagree that what made Peter supreme was Christ appointing him the Rock of his Church? The supremacy is because of that, not because Peter was supreme to begin with.

Any opinions?

 

[happilycatholic]

In Post #123 it should read:

The Church teaches that Peter was our first pope and therefor supreme over the Church of Christ. The Church doesn’t teach that Peter was the best and greatest Apostle and that is why he’s pope. **This is what the catechism says:

---

[882](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/882.htm’)[** The Pope**](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/882.htm’), 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."402 "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."403

---

My quote didn’t make it in. Obviously what actually followed were my own words, not an excerpt from the Catechism.

 

[jpaul1953]

Well at least it ain’t blatant. Here is what you seem to be claiming:

a) Peter is given some sort of special authority that is not also given to the other apostles. (This is possible, but not certain. )

b) That special authority was passed onto the bishop of Rome. (History says that it is doubtful that Rome had a singular bishop at the time that Peter could have been at Rome. You presume that this authority was transferable and that it was transfered only to the bishop of Rome as opposed to the other churches established or visited by Peter or as opposed to the entire Christian community that was unified through the Spirit. I am not prepared to accept those presumptions on the basis that “Rome says so”…and I am pleased to note that I can easily find support for my rejection of your presumptions in the works of modern Roman Catholic scholars.)

c) That the special authority was never lost by the bishopric of Rome even when many of the bishops of Rome were entirely unqualified to be a bishop/overseer as dictated by the requirements of scripture. (Too much of a stretch)

I see is no need to nullify the authority that you claim for your church b/c it doesn’t exist.

No I am saying that you and Rome have made the mistake by claiming that the bishop of Rome possesses something that doesn’t even exist…

Apparently God b/c he included a record of those arguments in scripture.
Tis sad, but true…

RADICAL,

You have shown no proof once again, just rhetoric
Give me proof that I am wrong or just say you don’t have it and admit you just don’t like the Catholics.

There would have been no need to have Kephas pass the torch to another person if Joshua came back during that time , but He didn’t and as Joshua passed it to Kephas, Kephas passed it to another and another passed it to another and so on. There is a list of all the Popes (bishops of Rome) since Joshua gave it to Kephas., but you’ll say it’s invalid. So don’t waste any more of your time on this thread if you’re not serious about getting to the truth.

jpaul1953

you hate the Church because you and your cronies claim were are BAD! You hate-wow ask God about this problem you have.

 

[Radical]

Let’s address this one and in particular the part bolded.

History will “say” a lot of things. You will need to look at the history of the subject entity which you are disputing, not it’s adversaries.

huh? How does one dispute an entity? How about we look at the earliest records (w/o presumptions/assumptions) and determine what likely happened?

The Church has clear documentation on the merits of many, many Saints and Bishops alike such as the Didache (65-80 A.D.) to prove you incorrect. No matter who wrote it, it obviously was written by a Christian of the time.

I believe that you have credited the Didache with a date that is a little earlier than what is commonly accepted. That said, what is it that you think the Didache says that proves me incorrect? The Didache, purporting to be the very teaching of the apostles, instructs the congregation to appoint for itself bishops (plural) and deacons (plural). How does that make Peter the first bishop of Rome? How does that suggest that the initial church leadership was some sort of single Monarchical bishop?

Or maybe the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (ca 150)

I believe that you have credited the Epistle with a date that is a little later than what is commonly accepted. Clement never identifies himself as a Monarchical bishop. This and other things including the fact that Ignatius never addresses a bishop in Rome (as he does in all his other letters) causes modern historians to conclude that Rome did not possess a single bishop at first. Rather, they conclude that the church of Rome was led by a group of bishops. As to Peter being the first bishop of Rome, historians look at the fact that although Paul (in Romans) bothers to name members of that congregation, he never mentions Peter. Further, if Peter was the founder of the church at Rome, why would Paul presume to advise it?

You are studing a certain perspective of history. Maybe even your own perspective.

I think that one does not study a perspective of history unless one is doing a history of an historical approach.

If I study the history of WICCA it will say that no God ever existed. If I study the history of atheism it will say the same.

No, history will seek to find out what Wiccans and Atheists likely did and believed. Therefore, if you studied the history of Atheists you would find out when and why Atheists believed that no God ever existed and you would learn what they did concerning that belief. It would be foolish to study the writings of an ancient atheist and adopt his views as your own merely b/c they are the subject of your study. Likewise, it would be foolish to study the early church fathers and assume that everything they reported was accurate. Clement, for example, thought that the phoenix existed and came to life again. I am not prepared to accept that belief, are you? The ECFs also contradicted one another…and so we study the matter to find out what likely happened (as opposed to merely accepting only what serves the claims of the CC)

Who’s history are you studying? Try studying Christian history.

Been there, done that…from what I have seen, you would be well advised to take this advice for yourself.

 

[grandfather]

Radical,

It is helpful to understand the meaning of the keys. The king appoints certain people in His kingdom, his servants, to certain posts. Everyone is a servant to the king, but some people have important posts. This was true of the Jews, but also in other ancient kingdoms in the Bible. It is still true today. We have in our country a secretary of state, secretary of defense, vice president, etc. The king chooses which of his servants will serve Him and the kingdom in which capacity. The prime minister or first servant is the highest office with the most authority in the kingdom, next to the king. When the king is gone off to war or leaves his kingdom he leaves the prime minister to act in his place. Anything the prime minister does he does with the authority of the king. He speaks for the king. He is the king’s most trusted servant and given the office by the king.

Different offices had different insignia, or signs that were worn to signify the person’s title and role, kind of like a general wearing stars, or a colonel eagles, or a sargeant stripes…

The title of prime minister in a kingdom existed throughout medieval times and even today England has its queen or king and a prime minister. The insignia of the prime minsiter was keys. He wore them around his neck.

Everyone who originally heard what Jesus said to Peter understood it plainly. Jesus giving Peter the keys to His kingdom made Peter Jesus’s prime minister. That might not be so apparent to someone like you who would not realize the significance of the statement, but anyone living then or throughout most history would understand.

I want to share with you some basic Catholic theology, which you will not accept, but it might come in handy some day.

The only unforgivable sins are sins against the Holy Spirit. There are six. One of them is resistance to the known truth. Another is obstinacy in sin. The others are presumption, despair, envy of another’s spiritual good and final impenitence. When Jesus spoke to the pharisees and said they would die in their sins He was telling them they would go to hell, die impenitent, in the state of sin. At any rate we have to ask ourselves what is the known truth? Who knows it? Do we have the right and power to determine for ourselves as individuals what it is, or do we learn it passed down from others? How did God ordain that we would learn it? If we reject it are the consequences really hell?

 

[happilycatholic]

huh? How does one dispute an entity? How about we look at the earliest records (w/o presumptions/assumptions) and determine what likely happened?

Are you telling me you can’t dispute the catholic Church or that it’s not an entity?

I

believe that you have credited the Didache with a date that is a little earlier than what is commonly accepted. That said, what is it that you think the Didache says that proves me incorrect? The Didache, purporting to be the very teaching of the apostles, instructs the congregation to appoint for itself bishops (plural) and deacons (plural). How does that make Peter the first bishop of Rome? How does that suggest that the initial church leadership was some sort of single Monarchical bishop?

 

[jpaul1953]

Radical,

It is helpful to understand the meaning of the keys. The king appoints certain people in His kingdom, his servants, to certain posts. Everyone is a servant to the king, but some people have important posts. This was true of the Jews, but also in other ancient kingdoms in the Bible. It is still true today. We have in our country a secretary of state, secretary of defense, vice president, etc. The king chooses which of his servants will serve Him and the kingdom in which capacity. The prime minister or first servant is the highest office with the most authority in the kingdom, next to the king. When the king is gone off to war or leaves his kingdom he leaves the prime minister to act in his place. Anything the prime minister does he does with the authority of the king. He speaks for the king. He is the king’s most trusted servant and given the office by the king.

Different offices had different insignia, or signs that were worn to signify the person’s title and role, kind of like a general wearing stars, or a colonel eagles, or a sargeant stripes…

The title of prime minister in a kingdom existed throughout medieval times and even today England has its queen or king and a prime minister. The insignia of the prime minsiter was keys. He wore them around his neck.

Everyone who originally heard what Jesus said to Peter understood it plainly. Jesus giving Peter the keys to His kingdom made Peter Jesus’s prime minister. That might not be so apparent to someone like you who would not realize the significance of the statement, but anyone living then or throughout most history would understand.

I want to share with you some basic Catholic theology, which you will not accept, but it might come in handy some day.

The only unforgivable sins are sins against the Holy Spirit. There are six. One of them is resistance to the known truth. Another is obstinacy in sin. The others are presumption, despair, envy of another’s spiritual good and final impenitence. When Jesus spoke to the pharisees and said they would die in their sins He was telling them they would go to hell, die impenitent, in the state of sin. At any rate we have to ask ourselves what is the known truth? Who knows it? Do we have the right and power to determine for ourselves as individuals what it is, or do we learn it passed down from others? How did God ordain that we would learn it? If we reject it are the consequences really hell?

Grandfather,

I would like to simplify the Holy Spirit and the unforgivable sin question. As deep as you are going with it is as easy as it is for one to rectify.

Christ said that one may blaspheme against God and Christ, but to blaspheme against the spirit, there is no forgiveness in this world or the next.(‘Or the next’ can raise a whole bunch of other possible question in re to Purgatory).

All one must do is what the prodigal son did, humbly ask for forgiveness. I believe this is why there are no cussing expressions involving the Holy Spirit, people misconstrue the meaning.

To me, this simply means that the Spirit is the totality of Christ and God. God is a misunderstood entity to most man. Christ, at that time, was basically accepted as being totally human with some extraordinary qualities by most people. But, the Spirit encompasses all. If you don’t have the Spirit within you you have nothing.

You may see miracles. You may believe in a great God, pagan or other. But, if you have the Spirit a little or a lot (based on the time of day and of one’s overall spiritual condition) you are connected to the Supreme Spirit.

The Catholic Church is the only church that understands that complete submission and trust adds to a daily growing connection with the Holy Spirit.

Many protestant churches teach that once you make the ‘sinner’s prayer’ and receive your NEW Baptism that you have the fullness of the Holy Spirit. This is hogwash. If it was true they could heal the sick immediately, not die from snake bites, etc. Their teachers shortchange them by saying they are receiving the full Spirit, when they aren’t even coming close.

The Church teaches that it’s a growth process, a journey that ends at physical death. None of us ever have the same depth connection with the Spirit. St Francis didn’t receive his Stigmata on the first day of his choosing Christ. It took incredibly heights of Spiritual growth for St Francis to reach that connection with Christ.

When one turns back to accept the Holy Spirit, that one’s journey is just beginning.

May God bless you Grandfather. As I’ve said before I trust you and because of this I don’t have to read as many books because you offer us so much free of charge just for the reading.

Thank again.

jpaul1953

 

[happilycatholic]

Does anyone have a comment on the OP? I’m curious to read opinions on this subject.

 

[Radical]

Are you telling me you can’t dispute the catholic Church or that it’s not an entity?

neither. I dispute the validity of the teachings of the entity known as the Catholic Church

If we read Clement I we see that he refers to Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome. Tell me how that happens if Peter wasn’t there.

You need to pay more attention to what I am saying. Saying that it is unlikely that Peter was the first first bishop of Rome is not the same as saying that Peter was never in Rome.

My point was simple:

It wouldn’t be wise to read history according to protestants when trying to find validity for catholicism and the first Pope, Peter.

If a historian is labelled a “protestant historian” or a “catholic historian” or an “atheist historian” b/c the product has an obvious slant, then that person is a bad historian. The conclusions drawn by the historian should be the product of a sound methodology and not a piece of propaganda produced to try to sell a particular faith. You give the impression that you aren’t really interested in exploring historical evidence and drawing the best conclusions…rather you want a “history” that validates your faith. That does not describe a search for truth.

Read Christian history it is chock FULL of catholicism.

Agreed. Rome has been a centre of ecclesiastical and political power for a long, long time.

Read the Didache. It speaks of the Eucharist…

Yes, it speaks of the eucharist as spiritual food w/o any mention of a real presence, it speaks of the congregation electing its own bishops…it is really quite protestant ( likely b/c it is such an early document).

 

[Radical]

Radical,

It is helpful to understand the meaning of the keys. …Everyone who originally heard what Jesus said to Peter understood it plainly. Jesus giving Peter the keys to His kingdom made Peter Jesus’s prime minister. That might not be so apparent to someone like you who would not realize the significance of the statement, but anyone living then or throughout most history would understand.

Hmmm, here are some bits from the “Power of the Keys” page at New Advent:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly…

…The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, “Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno” (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period.

It seems that (like me) the ECFs (for the most part) had a hard time grasping your alleged meaning of the keys. How odd it is that, when the ECFs have something to say in favour of a disputed CC doctrine, their opinion is said to reflect apostolic teaching. On the other hand, when the ECFs give a meaning to a passage that does not align with what the modern Catholic needs, the understanding of the ECFs is ignored.

 

[Radical]

RADICAL,

You have shown no proof once again, just rhetoric
Give me proof that I am wrong or just say you don’t have it and admit you just don’t like the Catholics.

I don’t see history as being about “proofs”…it ain’t a science or math. Rather we examine evidence and try and determine what happened (or most likely happened). I strongly suspect that you are not interested in pursuing such a task. I suspect that you and happilycatholic only want a sanitized version of history that will validate your faith…If I am wrong, then I would invite you both to read Garry Wills’s books: “Papal Sin” and “Why I am Still Catholic”. In them, Wills ( a Catholic and a historian who you probably wouldn’t like) sets out (very briefly) some of the historical evidence that challenges your approved “Catholic history”. Read them…if for no other reason than to begin to see where modern scholarship is going.

So don’t waste any more of your time on this thread if you’re not serious about getting to the truth.

Tell you what, how about we stop wasting each other’s time…b/c we each think that the other is spouting propaganda and not actual history. Right?

you hate the Church because you and your cronies claim were are BAD! You hate-wow ask God about this problem you have.

Please…I hate winter and waiting in line. I hate liver and onions, waste and the pressures of work…I don’t hate the CC.

 

[jpaul1953]

I don’t see history as being about “proofs”…it ain’t a science or math. Rather we examine evidence and try and determine what happened (or most likely happened). I strongly suspect that you are not interested in pursuing such a task. I suspect that you and happilycatholic only want a sanitized version of history that will validate your faith…If I am wrong, then I would invite you both to read Garry Wills’s books: “Papal Sin” and “Why I am Still Catholic”. In them, Wills ( a Catholic and a historian who you probably wouldn’t like) sets out (very briefly) some of the historical evidence that challenges your approved “Catholic history”. Read them…if for no other reason than to begin to see where modern scholarship is going.

Tell you what, how about we stop wasting each other’s time…b/c we each think that the other is spouting propaganda and not actual history. Right?

Please…I hate winter and waiting in line. I hate liver and onions, waste and the pressures of work…I don’t hate the CC.

Dear Radical,

You are one fired up individual. Everytime I ask you to prove that the bible doesn’t give the Catholic Church the authority it claims, but instead has abused the "authority’ given to the point of loosing the authority given, you start with other areas of topic.

I like what you wrote . I don’t see any real issue there with Authority. You are speaking about Catholics speaking about Catholic understanding.I wish that instead of you fighting littles battles to prove your point you may look and examine just the words Christ used in Matt 16:15-20.

Jesus never promised His church a ‘rose garden’. He knew Simon wasn’t perfect, but he knew Simon would excel with the Holy Spirit in him. It shows this in Acts. Paul appears to stand out more than Peter only because the Catholic Church allowed more of Paul’s Epistles in the NT than anyone else ( And, of course, Luke stories on Paul in Acts covered many more pages).

I ask you to look at the 2000-years of the Christian Church (not churches) that Christ said would never be taken down by Satan himself. Jesus never said that His Church wouldn’t go through incredible turmoil as it has. The Church is run by humans with the incredible ability to screw up, misguide, step away from truths to benefit themselves. The Church that Christ designed has had hierarchy that at many times has been much closer to the Devil than Christ. This Church, as so many powerful places, abuse their God-given power for ego related desires. They too forget they are going to die and meet Jesus face to face.

The original point I was trying to make is that the Church is still here, just like Christ said. That is amazing when you look at individual situations that so many ego-centered stewards of the Church have tried to gain power, money, and fame along with the horrendous sin of hurting the little ones (better off they have a stone and rope around their neck and thrown into the sea).

Christ said His Church will stand and it is. According to the 'World Christian Encyclopaedia there are 30,000+ denominations of non-catholic Christians, along with 242denominations of Catholic. The denominations are basically issued to each church from each country. Same Church, different country means a denomination, but in fact it is not a denomination,. It’s just stated that way as a reference point. I believ using the same standard, the non-Catholics are at 22,000+ (I may be mistaken. I read it awhile ago)

I sure you know the Papacy used “infallibility” only twice in 2000-years, both in regards to our Blessed Mother. You all can say whatever you want about the Mother of Jesus, but she is highly honored in the Church that Christ built And, no one is going to prove to us differently about her with children after Jesus since the Papacy cannot lie to Christ’s followers about anything when speaking 'infalibly". Christ is first, infallibility is second.

If the Church did not want any problems with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Church should have changed the Bible like Luther did to keep his storyline correct, but the Church didn’t. She takes the Bible in a literal sense, not literally like many of you do.

By the way, sorry for spelling BLATANT wrong and thank you for CORRECTING it.

May we all allow God to guide us to the truth.

jpaul1953

 

[RGWA]

John 6

Jesus was not speaking figuratively. He had many leave because the saying was to hard.

In verse 63 of the quoted chapter Christ states that he is speaking spiritualy, all things are symbolic of Christ when refered to in the temporal / mortal realm, they who walked no more with him where they who understood not the spirit.

 

[happilycatholic]

neither. I dispute the validity of the teachings of the entity known as the Catholic Church

Okay, I thought you asked how does one dispute an entity, rather than it’s teachngs.

You need to pay more attention to what I am saying. Saying that it is unlikely that Peter was the first first bishop of Rome is not the same as saying that Peter was never in Rome.

I think you need to read up on the Passover. It’s no coincidence that Christ offered himself up as the New Covenant at the Passover. Show where in Scripture the Jews ever used a “symbolic” form of sacrifice. They sacraficed a lamb, a real live lamb, not a lamb cracker or a lamb flavored piece of bread. It’s also no coincidence that Christ offers himself as a Blood AND Body sacrifice. Sacrifice was perfected by separation of the body and blood of the lamb. Kind of like Christ’s sacrifice huh? That was no accident.

The Eucharist is clearly revered by early Christians in such a way so as to be a sacrifice of the New Covenant by outlining very detailed instructions. One must be baptised and have confessed sins before receiving. There are certain prayers before and after. It was to be done on the Lord’s Day and not once a year. Clearly, it is not symbolic but rather very much a part of Christian life and part of the Lord’s Day worship.

The protestant version of “communion” today is a watered-down version of what Christians were practicing at the time of the Didache.

 

[happilycatholic]

Hmmm, here are some bits from the “Power of the Keys” page at New Advent:

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly…

Although we are dealing with a cut-and-paste here, I’m wondering where is the contridiction between the Church and Scripture or the contridiction amongst themselves? This is at best, a commentary given by a single person on the matter. But again, we don’t have the entire article, so we don’t know what’s inbetween or in what context the commentary is given.

Nevertheless, from these excerpts, what gives you the idea that the ECFs had a hard time grasping the meaning of the Keys? I would have to read the entire article, but the best-case scenario to prove the point you are trying to make would be that the first part of the excerpt denotes a narrower view than the other. Why would this be a problem?

And this is not the teaching of the Church. It is an independent article written by an entity not associated with the Vatical Council. So I would suggest, if you want the real version of how the Church looks at the meaning of the Keys and subsequently the scope of the Church’s authority within that meaning, you might want to look at the Vatican website or in the catechism. These are places to find the official teaching of the Church on it’s authority in matters of faith and morals, not some website ran by a source outside the Church.

"New Advent is maintained by a Catholic layman named Kevin Knight. Here’s my email address…"

I might as well be Kevin Knight. I could cut and paste any volume of information no matter how catholic and come up with anything. In other words, just because you got this from a seemingly ‘catholic source’ doesn’t mean it’s worthy of scrutiny under the authority of the Church.

In the meantime I’m going to go and read the entire article. Usually this website is pretty spot-on. I think this may be cut-and-pasted out of context. Maybe not. We’ll see.

 

[happilycatholic]

I don’t see history as being about “proofs”…it ain’t a science or math. Rather we examine evidence and try and determine what happened (or most likely happened). I strongly suspect that you are not interested in pursuing such a task. I suspect that you and happilycatholic only want a sanitized version of history that will validate your faith…If I am wrong, then I would invite you both to read Garry Wills’s books: “Papal Sin” and “Why I am Still Catholic”. In them, Wills ( a Catholic and a historian who you probably wouldn’t like) sets out (very briefly) some of the historical evidence that challenges your approved “Catholic history”. Read them…if for no other reason than to begin to see where modern scholarship is going.

I’m sorry. I will stick with a 2000 year old document probably written by men who walked with Christ. I WILL NOT however, read books written by men of today and their *“modern scholarship” *as you put it. Thanks, but no thanks. I glean my knowledge of God’s Church from Scripture and Apostolic Teaching, not man’s opinion.

And again, try to get your information from unbiased Christian history not the kind of **** you referenced here. It’s insulting to say the least.

Tell you what, how about we stop wasting each other’s time…b/c we each think that the other is spouting propaganda and not actual history. Right?

I hate liver and onions too. (is there a vomit emoticon?)