second question for our non-catholic brethern

[pocohombre]

My thoughts are that they were most definitely moved and guided by the Holy Spirit at the time. My question would then be, in a multi-generational sense, for how long? That is, how long before schism or other self-interest crept in, diminishing the initial purity of the Faith of the Apostles?

There was a certain point where, following the departure of Moses and His Divine Presence, something happened such that by the time Jesus Christ appeared on the scene, little was left of the original Spirit, according to my understanding.

As this appears to be a recurring phenomena of human behavior, speaking as objectively as is scientifically possible, psychologically and spiritually, the process of degradation and petrification affects all forms throughout nature, including group behavior and the dynamics of human experience in general.

Anybody else see anything different happening?

.

Well hello. I do see things somewhat differently. The fact is God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Another fact man is also the same. There is also nothing new under the sun. The battle between good and evil, that He has won continues on for a time. For us it began at the fall in the garden, and will end with His final return. He holds it all in His hands and is surprised by nothing. He has His dispensations and covenants. If we keep our eye only on those we will be disappointed. If we keep our eye on Him, we see perfection in it all. So what is your focus,the “religion”, the dispensation, the “box” ? You will be disappointed then for as you say there is always “schism”. The first one took place at the garden.The next one with Cain and Abel and on down the line. I would not judge the covenants or God’s method of dealing based on the obvious downfalls, They are not due to God. Having said that the final covenant fulfills all the rest,so in the end all were “PERFECTLY FULFILLED” . Judaism was perfect, for she brought forth the Child, as promised on day one of the fall. Christianity will fulfill it’s destiny, and will be the bride at His second coming, saints from every tribe and nation… Look at at the covenant keepers, Judaism and Christianity. All human beings with all their frailties. Perfect scenario, for in that God is manifested gracious, longsuffering, loving, powerful and saving etc., etc… There has always been a remnant of faithful .There has always been those full of His Spirit, especially in this last dispensation where He can indwell fully in the believer. There is no other explanation for church growth, especially under persecution of death. Indeed the gates of hell, death itself, shall not prevail against this implant of God in the regenerated heart. Nothing can separate us from His love. So He is fully alive today in the lives of many believers, and is quite a visible Church. So, what is the problem ? Do we really need another thought process, another Box to put God and truth in, another religion, another name in which all men under heaven can be saved by ?

 

[PJM]

=pocohombre;11452996]yes thank you. these have been posted. have been responding one by one and saying they do not show CC definition of primacy.

That dear friend is a WISHFUL… DUH:shrug: OF COURSE THEY DO!

 

[PJM]

=pocohombre;11454814]Cyril 6: 15, 4:35 “As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church”,…" Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church". newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm Again a primacy that is personal to Peter, not necessarily jurisdictional over others. I have no problem calling Peter chief, for he was but as an equal and he definitely used the keys first (so did the others afterwards). Hopefully you have no problem in calling Paul an equal jurisdictional* chief *as Peter or even the other apostles, per Cyril’s complete writings.books. [books.google.com/books?

](http://books.google.com/books? )

Of COURSE I have a problem with your understanding.

Its neither biblical or historical.

I have a document that shows FIFTY "Peter First from the Bible.

Paul went to see Peter; not the other way around.

Christ choosing Peter to HEAD His One God; with One Faith in One Church FOLLOWS OT Tradition. God with complete consistency choose ONE MAN to Lead HIS “Chosen People”; which is the ROLE the CC has in today’s time.

From Adam, Noah, Abram, Issac, Jacob, the Judges and prophets and Kings; ALL male, ALL singularly placed in charge BY GOD!

John 21: 13-17
"And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 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

In the now famous PASSING on of the Key’s to PETER, the terms :binding and loosening" were DIRECT authority for “UNLIMITED Power and Authority of GOVERNANCE”. These terms were very common at the time as Kings of walled in cities like Jerusalem APPOINTED ONE MAN to Govern the cily on a day to day basis; and this ONE man answered ONLY to the King.

ALL of the Bishops are “equal” BUT answer to the One man who LEADS. This was Peters Role. Amen!

God Bless you,
Patrick

From

 

[pocohombre]

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Ambrose- " I say, when he heard: “But who do you say I am” [Matt. 16:15], immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. That is to say: “Now let no one outdo me; now is my role; "Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” angelfire.com/ny4/djw/ambrose.petrineprimacy.html

 

[pocohombre]

Pope Adrian VI

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII."

Blessed pope Pius IX

"I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?"
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."

webspace.webring.com/people/up/pharsea/VicarOfChrist.html#The%20Witness%20of%20the%20Fathers

 

[eddie_too]

i thought it was His Church that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail over.

i have never heard the phrase interpreted as applying to either peter’s body (?) or to anyone’s faith.

the pronoun it refers to the immediately preceding noun that agrees with it in number and gender. the last noun is Church, not faith and not peter’s body.

 

[eddie_too]

how can a group have unity if no one has the authority to make a final decision?

without final authority within a group it is inevitable that the group will divide.

 

[pocohombre]

IX. Jerome says: If the question is concerning authority, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same dignity and priesthood’. bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

 

[eddie_too]

and when there is disagreement among the bishops, then division is the result.

i will never believe that Jesus set up a system that was designed to encourage or even allow division amongst His followers.

i know this is the protestant belief. i respect the protestants’ right to believe anything they choose. it is evident that protestants have chosen division in Christ’s mystical body.

i will never believe that Jesus chose division.

 

[Kliska]

This is a common misunderstanding about what most of us believe; most don’t believe Christ’s body is divided at all, but rather made up of many members. The Church invisible; that is why protestants still can say the Apostle’s Creed, and affirm the catholic or universal church.

This protestant believes in the fundamentals, like the Apostle’s Creed, and that we wrong the body of Christ by sewing divisions over things we should be charitable over. But please understand we haven’t “chosen division” at all.

 

[eddie_too]

if no one in an institution has final say, division is inevitable.

since NO ONE knows who is in the invisible Church (because no one knows with metaphysical certainty who is in God’s good graces), to act as though the invisible Church means there is no need for a visible Church is untenable and unsupportable.

 

[Kliska]

Perhaps, perhaps not. We don’t believe Jesus left us bereft. God Himself is the head of the church. When the Holy Spirit came to us on Pentecost there was a change and the church proper was born. He is the guide, and guided individuals to write the NT scriptures. We have the word of God, and God Himself as authorities.

We also affirm scripture where it teaches that God has given certain roles and certain gifts to the people; prophets, evangelists, teachers, etc… for the the perfection of the saints. We (most of us) just don’t believe that these people are labeled “priests” and are somehow separate from the laity. He also gave us positions for people to fill in the different churches. Again, we just don’t see it in the same way as the RCC, but just because we see it differently doesn’t mean we don’t yearn for unity.

 

[jmcrae]

if no one in an institution has final say, division is inevitable.

since NO ONE knows who is in the invisible Church (because no one knows with metaphysical certainty who is in God’s good graces), to act as though the invisible Church means there is no need for a visible Church is untenable and unsupportable.

I agree with you - we are commanded to obey the Church but how can we obey what we can’t see or know? We can only obey if we know with confidence who speaks on behalf of the Church. Otherwise we are only following our personal opinions and those with whom we already agree - but obedience also includes doing things we don’t agree with, or else why have a commandment for it?

 

[pocohombre]

how can a group have unity if no one has the authority to make a final decision?

without final authority within a group it is inevitable that the group will divide.

There is plenty of visible authority without today’s definition of pope. A group will divide anyways, and the more papal definition was strengthened, the more division.(E.g. -Vatican I and afterwards you get division of Old Catholics). That is not to say it didn’t serve some good (though one could argue the patriarch system would have given you the same good).

 

[SteveVH]

There is plenty of visible authority without today’s definition of pope.

Where?

 

[pocohombre]

if no one in an institution has final say, division is inevitable.

since NO ONE knows who is in the invisible Church (because no one knows with metaphysical certainty who is in God’s good graces), to act as though the invisible Church means there is no need for a visible Church is untenable and unsupportable.

Is the Orthodox and Protestant Church invisible ? Can you not find a congregation of theirs in your city ?

 

[pocohombre]

Where?

Really ? If your Catholic neighbor “offends” you, do you have to got to Rome to resolve it authoratatively ?

 

[Peter_J]

Hold on …

There is only one Chair of Peter and therefore bishops are bishops because they are appointed by the Chair that has the aurthority to appoint. There are many bishops in the world but not necessarily from the Chair of Peter.

Are you saying that bishops are bishops because they are appointed by the Pope?

 

[SteveVH]

Really ? If your Catholic neighbor “offends” you, do you have to got to Rome to resolve it authoratatively ?

No, because it does not require an authoritative decision.

To define and proclaim dogma and doctrine and to administer the sacraments requires authority handed down by the Apostles. To proclaim a set of writings as the inspired, inerrant word of God requires authority.

So I ask you again. Where do you find this authority?

 

[Peter_J]

There is plenty of visible authority without today’s definition of pope.

Ultramontanists – or at least some of them – don’t seem to see it that way.