No need. Of course you say “MEN”, otherwise… And what do we we say in place of your “MEN” reform ? If you start out with a round wheel and over time it is not so round anymore, you re-form the wheel to a more circular shape. The Lord does not have “reformation” or revival or chastisement or correction a man for all seasons ?
Well we are getting our terminology mixed up. “Church” is the " called out", the Elect, the Body. That is what Christ associated himself closely with, and that is what gets persecuted. To have to put a "one’ or "apostolic’’ or “holy” or “catholic” is not necessary. Of course the Body of Christ is one, holy, and has apostles as our foundation and has universality (catholic). Now it is plain that our bible says it is quite carnal to hold too much to differences beyond being "elect’’, "called out’’, like those who said I am of Peter or I am of Paul. Keep the main thing the main thing.Right .What happens, or is the state of one believing that Christ came in the flesh and was raised up ?
The word Church has different connotations. The terms ‘one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic’ are not mine. Those are the terms used by the Church Fathers in framing the Nicene Creed. That is how they defined the Body of Christ. They said it was one church not the thousands of protestant denominations. They said it was a holy Church because it derived its holiness from its founder, Jesus Christ. Luther imparted no holiness to his denomination. They said the church was Catholic, universal in time and location with the same doctrines and not just a johnny come lately of the last 500 years. They said the church was Apostolic because the deposit of faith was passed down through the generations from the Apostles to bishops like Matthias, Titus, Clement, Elvodius, Ignatius, Timothy, Polycarp, etc. an unbroken line down to the present time. It is possible to trace the succession of every bishop today back to one of the Apostles. And that includes both Catholic and Orthodox bishops. Those are the so called “Marks of the Church” in the early days of christianity.
Peter’s declaration was infallible because it wasn’t purely by human reasoning or judgement that he comprehended the divine truth, but by the grace of God. What he understood came through the light of faith. God enabled him to see the Scriptures in an entirely new light and how many Judaic traditional beliefs pointed towards the divinity of Christ. Meanwhile, God does use certain mediums or instruments to allow us to see the divine truth for ourselves with the help of His grace.
*Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to **the divine office ***[stewardship from God; God’s commission] which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.
The divinity of Christ is a dogmatic divine truth of the Church. Thus it has not been made known to individuals through any private revelation. The Ethiopian eunuch desired to know the full meaning of the prophet Isaiah. But the Holy Spirit did not privately enlighten him on the mystery hidden in the text. Rather, the Holy Spirit prompted his appointed minister, Philip, to go over to the eunuch’s chariot so that he would be invited to make the word of God fully known to him. The eunuch knew very well that he needed a faithful and qualified man to guide him to see the fullness of the divine truth pertaining to Christ (cf. Acts 8:26-40). In the words of Peter: “First of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). John concurs: “Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever does not know God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 Jn. 4:6). What the two apostles mean to say is that nobody can grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ by refusing to listen to what they have to preach. God’s revelation is transmitted to us through both Scripture and Tradition with regard to matters of faith and morals provided we listen to the teachings of the ministers of the New Covenant who have been commissioned by God. Unless we do listen to them, the divine mysteries shall remain hidden to us as they were to the Ethiopian eunuch until he met Philip.
Yes, of course I say “MEN”, otherwise … I’d be lying.
Yes, but if you’re looking at that wheel with a bad astigmatism?
Not so. In fact, we see examples of how even evil occupants of an office speak revelation. For example:
So, according to your belief, there are thousands of DIFFERING “revelations”? Or is it that any besides your own belief system really don’t “desire” it?
Interesting, isn’t it, that “men” all thought the wrong thing in St. Peter’s answer.
Hi benhur: It seemed to me that Jesus was speaking to the Apostles not to everyone when he asked them "Who do you say that I am? Only peter it seems was able to answer the question Jesus asked and that was as Jesus told Peter it was by the Father in heaven who revealed it to you (Peter), God apparently did not reveal it to the rest of the Apostles which should tell us that it is to Peter that Jesus 'Church was going to be built on as the foundation, a rock meaning solid. If I remember correctly Jesus also told Peter to straighten his brethren meaning that Peter would be the one to make sure all would be on the same page when it came to preaching the Good news that Jesus told them to do.
Yes, and correct prophesy comes from where ? This does not justify that he is a respector of persons when it comes to “this” revelation.
I didnt know there are thousands of differing revelations about the one revelation that Jesus is the Mesiah the Son of God the way Peter knew it . It is “this” revelation I am talking about, not about when to genuflect, or is there a limbo or is purgatory a place ?
THis is totally false .You are trying to strengthen the “clique”. Peter was not the only one to think so, at this time or before. Very exclusionary paradigm based on assumption. So what if it was only Peter . He was a man and more. No evidence that the "more " had anything to do with it, at least not separated from the man.
Wrong assumption that none of the other apostles got it .Are you saying the other apostles only got it from Peter ? He was a spokesman, a leader but serving the rest. He was there mouthpiece and I would not assume there spiritual inferiority because they were not leader(s). You also assume much on “strenghten brethren” but agreeas to goal of preaching the gospel.
From the Holy Spirit. And you’ll note that the reason given for the high priest to give correct prophesy is that he held the OFFICE.
Sorry, just readin’ the bible. And believing it.
Funny thing – none of those things have been revealed.
You’re all over the map on this. I don’t think you’ve thought it out very clearly.
Hi benhur: it seems to me from reading that passage in Matthew’s Gospel that apparently the other Apostles did not get it at least till Jesus responded in what he said to Peter. It appears to me that when Jesus said to Peter only 'MY Father in heaven revealed it you" that somehow the other Apostles did not get it, only Peter. yes, peter was the spokesperson for the other Apostles but in this context he was not speaking for them but answering the Question Jesus asked that anyone of the other Apostles could have answered had it been revealed to them also. I do not assume anything, if Jesus told Peter to straighten his brethren what do you think it means if not his brethren?
Or if the other apostles had already seen the truth before Jesus addressed them, it was because they had listened to what Peter had to say about Jesus in light of the Scriptures and had given their sacred assent out of respect for his leadership. In that case, Peter would have answered Jesus on behalf of all the apostles, and Jesus would have called Peter blessed for having been the one to have infallibly made known the divine truth to the others. Either way the Gospel clearly presents Peter as a type of vicar before the Church was born at Pentecost. What he had bound on earth will have been bound in heaven for flesh and blood didn’t reveal the divine truth to him.
Hi Good Fella: I think you made a very good point! I had not thought of it but I can see that the passage could very well lead to that conclusion. The Apostles as you so very well stated were in general in agreement with Peter because Peter was not just their leader so to speak but their spokesperson . I think you are on to something with your statement that Peter was or a type of vicar before the Church was born at Pentecost. Peter it seems to me is mentioned many times more so than the rest of the Apostles outside of Jesus Himself. Its as though the writers of the Gospels accounts wanted people to know that Peter was special in that Jesus gave him special attention and the writers wanted people to know also that Peter was not just a spokesperson for the Apostles but also their leader in union following Jesus.
Not true. First of all in Mt 16:15 when Jesus asked the question “who do you say I am?” He was addressing all of the Apostles. The Greek word used that is translated as ‘you’ is the word υμεις. This is the plural form of the second person. So He is asking all of the Apostles the question. But none respond but Peter. Peter’s answer was, as Jesus says, a direct revelation from the Father.
No one denies offices and HS guidance. No one should deny that “revelation” can come to others in the Body
Believing what ? Fact is, from scripture reading, anyone who says the same as Peter (Jesus is the Messiah) has the same revelation from the Father. Do you believe that ?
Do I really need to think “this” over, that Christ wishes none should perish but come to faith that He is the Messiah, that the Father wishes to draw all to this conclusion ?
The Apostles told Christ that people thought He was John the Baptist, Elijah, or jeremiah or one of the prophets.
]Elizabeth, Zecharias, Simeon, some Samaritans from the women at the well, Maybe Mary and Martha and Lazarus. Can’t rule out others after what 2-3 years of ministry/ miracles , maybe Mary Magdalene. …Anyways, from the question Christ may have inferred what people thought of Him other than what He was saying about himself , another swords, those that got it wrong, for the apostles knew or never heard Jesus say he was John or Jeremiah or Elijah. It is not like the Father was putting a “block” on peoples heart preventing them from “seeing” what Jesus was saying about Himself for several years, and waited for the right moment to let Peter see it first before anyone else.
yes we partly agree to some of this but more leader of the leaders.and they all had revelation from the Father as to who Jesus was which is the topic or was.
yes but what is your stand on "this " revelation that Jesus is the Christ ? Is God a respecter of persons in this grace ? That is all I am talking about FKB.
Hi Spina, yes of course he was having a team chat . The rest of our agreement goes downhill. Peter answered.That is all we know. Can’t infer others didn’t know or that Father had revelealed to Peter only…I read staighten as in staighten out but you meant strengthen which i agree he would do.
Well GF so “Christ is the Messiah” is bound on the earth thru Peter therefore, it must be true in heaven also ? That is what you are saying, but it is the other way around . It is true in Heaven for the Father revealed, yes to Peter and all of us , making it bound on earth. …So you really think this revelation all came thru Peter, and the Father didn’t not reveal it to the other apostles except thru Peter ? Does anyone else think that way , or is that official CC teaching ?
Listen, we all love Peter, even though St. Paul is mentioned a minute tad more
I’ve already made clear what I mean, that what Peter bound on earth by the grace of God will have been bound in heaven, or else what he declared would have resulted purely by fallible human reasoning. Ezeekl has shown that Jesus is addressing Peter in Matthew’s gospel. That should answer your question. If you’re going to debate with someone, at least have the courtesy to listen to what they have to say and refrain from arguing for argument’s sake.