- Status
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
Your reasoning from the additional scriptures you have quoted to justify the Primacy of Peter flies in the face of the SENSE of scripture and is, in my view, fanciful exegesis.
P
PJM
Guest
To say that Peter had a special
The Roman Catholic claim concerning Peter as the first pope sets aside the scripture principle. I reject this claim because it places the authority of the pope above scripture.
Reply: Nope
Firsr the Pope has not, and does not speak against Scripture, (Perhaps your limited understanding of Scripture?) Your in merkey waters with your thinking. Read the following:
Catholic Answer on Primacy of Peter
The question before us is “can there be ‘an infallible proclamation’ out side of the bible?
The short answer is yes.
The RCC teaches and has always taught (and has almost always had deserters, even in the present age), understood and put into practice that the Supreme Pontiff, whether alone or in “communion with the Magistrium” (the body of bishops world wide that are supporting the Pontiff,) may and can make an official pronouncement from the “chair of Peter” on matters of Faith and or Morals (only), intended for world wide application, and if all above conditions are met, it is understood to be an “infallible pronouncement.”
As a secondary note: All teachings are the Holy Father, relating to the RCC, are to be given assent and acceptance of faith, by all Catholics. In other words we are to accept and live his teachings.
Why is this? Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?
Because I am limited to the number of words that I can use, I will in this post only reference one bible passage, perhaps at a later time, I will post additional verses supporting the Primacy of Peter? They are quite numerous *** a “body of work.”
Matt. 16:013-19
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
We have to establish two platforms for our discussion. First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to. Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.
Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?
Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.
Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.
Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”
Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!”
Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.
Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.
Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!
Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.
Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!
Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.
God’s continued Blessings,
PJM
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think so. However, we also have the teachings of the Apostles that were handed down to us, so we understand the scriptures in the light of those.
It is true that “pope” is a Latin word that did not develop for a long time with reference to that position. However, the word does not change the position given to Peter by Christ. Also, what makes you more “right” in determining the “intentions of the HS” for the verses than the successors of those who wrote them?
Oh?? Which one is that?
No, there is no battle between the two. They are equal. Peter was writing and defining the scripture even as he was fulfilling the Petrine gift that Jesus gave to him. There is no conflict between the scripture and those who were placed in charge of writing, defining and protecting it.
I did not see where such a claim was made. However, I will say that it is not appropriate to make interpretations of the text outside of their context, which is the Catholic Church.
Yes, I agree. Is this what was asserted? Do you understand that this is not what the charism of infallibility is about?
This is not an exaggeration. Perhaps you don’t understand what is meant by ex cathedra?
Sounds to me more like they don’t fit as YOU understand it!
You are creating a dichotomy where one does not exist. The authority of the pope cannot go against the scripture. They both have their source in God, and there is no conflict.
Therefore, there is no need to appeal to scripture against the pope.
It is interesting to me that you have clearly stated that you don’t recognize that there is any such office as the papacy, and yet now you are expressing a “dee;ly held conviction” about how the pope ought to behave.
Does that not seem odd to anyone else?
Yes, he would. Most “other ministers” are not authorized, for one thing, and none of them were given the Petrine gift, for another.
So you have said, and yet, you seem to have deep convictions about how that entirely rejected Pope ought to behave.
And by whose authority did you determine that?
This is not accurate about the history of the councils. On the contrary, we see clearly in the very first council of Jerusalem that the magesterium made their decision alongside the HS, and documented this in the letter, saying “It seemed right to the HS and to us”. Therefore, the testimony of the council is not “only human” is it?
J
justasking4
Guest
Are all church councils of the Holy Spirit?I don’t think so. However, we also have the teachings of the Apostles that were handed down to us, so we understand the scriptures in the light of those.
It is true that “pope” is a Latin word that did not develop for a long time with reference to that position. However, the word does not change the position given to Peter by Christ. Also, what makes you more “right” in determining the “intentions of the HS” for the verses than the successors of those who wrote them?
Oh?? Which one is that?
No, there is no battle between the two. They are equal. Peter was writing and defining the scripture even as he was fulfilling the Petrine gift that Jesus gave to him. There is no conflict between the scripture and those who were placed in charge of writing, defining and protecting it.
I did not see where such a claim was made. However, I will say that it is not appropriate to make interpretations of the text outside of their context, which is the Catholic Church.
Yes, I agree. Is this what was asserted? Do you understand that this is not what the charism of infallibility is about?
This is not an exaggeration. Perhaps you don’t understand what is meant by ex cathedra?
Sounds to me more like they don’t fit as YOU understand it!
You are creating a dichotomy where one does not exist. The authority of the pope cannot go against the scripture. They both have their source in God, and there is no conflict.
Therefore, there is no need to appeal to scripture against the pope.
It is interesting to me that you have clearly stated that you don’t recognize that there is any such office as the papacy, and yet now you are expressing a “dee;ly held conviction” about how the pope ought to behave.
Does that not seem odd to anyone else?
Yes, he would. Most “other ministers” are not authorized, for one thing, and none of them were given the Petrine gift, for another.
So you have said, and yet, you seem to have deep convictions about how that entirely rejected Pope ought to behave.
And by whose authority did you determine that?
This is not accurate about the history of the councils. On the contrary, we see clearly in the very first council of Jerusalem that the magesterium made their decision alongside the HS, and documented this in the letter, saying “It seemed right to the HS and to us”. Therefore, the testimony of the council is not “only human” is it?
A
A_Sinner_1
Guest
I have been following this thread and have been impressed by how it is stayed on track, remained polite, and retained a high level of discussion—a singular accomplishment.
Congratulations all.
I hope my questions to not serve to derail or degrade.
Please, if you can, answer the following–
If the Bible is the sole, inerrant, and complete authority, if nothing else is needed even for its interpretation, it must be part of God’s plan, do you agree?
Jesus in did not, in his lifetime, commission apostles to write the New Testament, and did not send them forth to hand it out, correct?
Why was the New Testament written only gradually after the lifetime of Jesus? Why was it written not as one singular document, but as a series of unconnected writings, necessitating action on the part of the Church to determine which canons were the authentic word of God?
Must not this have been part of God’s plan as well?
Congratulations all.
I hope my questions to not serve to derail or degrade.
Please, if you can, answer the following–
If the Bible is the sole, inerrant, and complete authority, if nothing else is needed even for its interpretation, it must be part of God’s plan, do you agree?
Jesus in did not, in his lifetime, commission apostles to write the New Testament, and did not send them forth to hand it out, correct?
Why was the New Testament written only gradually after the lifetime of Jesus? Why was it written not as one singular document, but as a series of unconnected writings, necessitating action on the part of the Church to determine which canons were the authentic word of God?
Must not this have been part of God’s plan as well?
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
I do not doubt the truth at all! I love the truth and I live by the truth!By what standard do you doubt the truth and how do you measure your relative truth?
I am waiting for your answer so that we can proceed.
It is just that we adopt different interpretations, Cinette. I hold that PERFECT TRUTH is found in scripture alone (sola scriptura). I do not hold to relative truth in any shape or form. God’s inerrant word is absolute, unalterable and unchanging truth.
You hold, on the other hand, that Scripture plus Sacred Tradition as interpreted and proclaimed to the faithful by the Roman Catholic Magisterium is the absolute truth. I reject this interpretation entirely, as you will have noticed by reading my posts.
Because I have adopted the sola scriptura (scripture alone as our source of absolute truth) principle this means that scripture stands OVER traditions, reason, and all extra-biblical sources as norms for judging Christian doctrine.
As a result of my belief in sola scriptura I think now you will more easily be able to understand why I do not regard the Church Fathers as infallible in their writings and statements.
J
justasking4
Guest
There is enough in the history to make even catholics blush with anger. Just look at the inquisitions that went on for centuries with the apprival of popes.
G
guanophore
Guest
What would it change if Peter had primacy among the Apostles?
A
A_Sinner_1
Guest
Rather than get off track with a discussion of the Inquisition, I’ll assume for now that your statement is true. It proves nothing. The Church is composed of fallible human beings. Every pope was a sinner, both before and during his papacy.
T
twb1621
Guest
I have yet to receive an honest, reasonable reponse when it comes to Sola Scriptura to my posts which leads me to believe that you can not provide such answers. Although I have heard many scriptural verses twisted in interpretation here, there has been no explanation as to how for 1500 years the gospel could be interpreted and the teachings of God faithfully handed down one way yet after 1500 years through to today you provide generated interpretations completely distorted from the very place your Bible originated, and you don’t find that a curiously suspicious.
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
I don’t know why you have singled me out, in particular, to respond to your posts 833 and 835. There are other people out there who hold to sola scriptura.
Well, I suppose I could take it somewhat as a compliment that you have asked for my comments - bearing in mind that all I seek is the truth on issues; I have nothing against Catholics at all, and I respect your right to believe as you do.
I do not adopt the sola scriptura principle simply to be a “nark” and an awkward customer. I am deeply convinced of it in face of the fact that I know, personally, Catholic people who I have a high regard and esteem for.
On this basis, let me read your posts over and I promise to come back to you with a reply which does justice to the sentiments I have expressed above.
Cheers in Christ, Craig
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
-For the proponents of sola scriptura-
Where do the Early Church Fathers teach sola scriptura? And those that composed the canon in the 4th century Councils - where are their arguments in favor of sola scriptura?
Where do the Early Church Fathers teach sola scriptura? And those that composed the canon in the 4th century Councils - where are their arguments in favor of sola scriptura?
D
distracted
Guest
and could be frying in Hell as we speak…What specific thing or two did they disagree on?
They were at least unified on this…
wanna join them??
To reject the Church Christ founded is to reject Him… and His will…
Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven but he who does the will of the Father…
The way to eternal life is narrow and there are few who find it…
D
distracted
Guest
I’ve read history of the Church. I blush about nothing… Big deal some Catholics were sinners… That does not change the fact that Christ established ONE Church on EArth… doesn’t make sense that He would establish more than one… That was human beings doings…There is enough in the history to make even catholics blush with anger. Just look at the inquisitions that went on for centuries with the apprival of popes.
the Inquisition is not a fraction as bad as Protestant historians (using the term loosely) often portray…
True, i wasn’t there. but i know one thing, Catholics have a serious fear of Hell… and would be much less likely to write a bunch of lies in history books than Protestants who bleieve they can do whatever t hey want (write whatever they want, etc.) & still get into Heaven (Luther…)
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The Church is not a museum of Saints, but a hospital for sinners!
T
twb1621
Guest
It’s not a matter of singling you out in the sense of making you a target but rather regardless of beliefs, I see you answering with sincerity and I have a genuine interest in your thoughts regarding the questions and statements.
D
distracted
Guest
and the Protestant church is…
Heck there IS no Protestant church…
just 35,000 church-ES… all teaching something different…
Sounds like a weiner…
D
distracted
Guest
Did Jesus say “Thou art Peter and on this rock i will build by Church-ES” (St. Mt 16:18) ???
:banghead:
:hypno:
C
ChristianKnight
Guest
Or he could have meant the common christian beliefs, couldn’t he? just wonderingDid Jesus say “Thou art Peter and on this rock i will build by Church-ES” (St. Mt 16:18) ???
:banghead:
- Status