Studies In Official Catholic Prophecy

[Protestant101]

I appreciate what you have tried to say here; I can see how some people would do such a thing as “reject the message because of the messenger;” however, I want it to be clear that this has nothing to do with where I am coming from. I don’t care what mistakes a given leader makes; I just want to know what is the correct message to be giving; and I am quoting the scriptures for people to see for themselves where I am coming from; for only in the Bible can we discern what is right. All other quoted sources ultimately must answer to the Bible. Peter was not the rock that Jesus was; and there’s no way that just one little verse can be used to dismiss all the many verses which say Jesus was the rock upon which the Church is to be built.

Joh 14:6

dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me**
**

 

[mgrfin]

This has nothing to do with my "personal interpretation. it is right in the scripture text itself. it is unwarranted to lift one verse out of context such as Catholics do, (mat.16:18) and make a great long doctrine out of it that simply is not in that text. You must seek for the context of the text in question or it is a pretext.

Here is the passage under consideration:
The conversation that jesus was having here with Peter shows the context; there is no private revelation going on here. it is well withing the “public” domain. Verses 17&18 are actually the full answer that Jesus gave to Peter, so it is out of context to just use verse 18 all by itself; for then one might read anything into it like Peter, instead of Jesus. So vs.17&18 are answering to the confession that peter made in response to Jesus’ question; and this is where Peter declares: “Thou art the Christ;” and it was upon this Rock that the Church was to be built. Jesus spoke to Peter, but did not say Peter was the Rock. How could Peter trump Jesus, as the foundation of the Church?

From the words themselves, and from the context, Jesus founded his Church on St. Peter. To say Jesus was founding his church on a concept, on a confession, is absurd.

The early Church, through today has always interpreted this section of Matthew to meaning the founding of the (Catholic) Church.

Can you show when this interpretation of yours began?

Your’s is a wish, a dream, that all of this Catholicism, and its foundation is fictious, that Jesus was a Protestant, etc. It is to quiet everyone of your Protestant believers over what it is they read in plain language.

What kind of Protestant was he? Was he Lutheran? Methodist?
Episcopalian?

Luther himself never arrived any any of this absurdity, nor did Calvin. You are also putting yourself out of business by such interpretation, for it can all be turned on yourself.

You can then argue any Catholic belief from Scripture by some allegorical meaning, for example, the Eucharist, salvation, justification, necessity of grace. None of it is true, except what it is you chose by your form of personal interpretation.

There is not purpose discussing any of this, or any Catholic doctrine til you clear your mind of the exstacy you are taking.

peace

 

[mercygate]

The only problem here is that “this rock” did not refer to Peter himself; it was referring to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ; and Christ was the Rock that the Church was, and is and will be built upon.

Grammatically, in Greek, this is hooey. Even Protestants don’t buy it. Moreover, Catholics do not separate Peter’s Confession from Peter himself. In fact, if you visit St. Peter’s grave under the high altar at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, you will see that the inscription reads (in Latin): You are the Christ, the Son of the lilving God."

Jesus was a Protestant; for he always protested tradition and other falsehoods which do not belong in the Church. He did not go along with the relgious leaders. The religious leaders of the day were the ones who left Jesus, and started their own Catholic denomination just after the Apostles. Protestants stayed with Jesus.

Denomination? After the Apostles? Unbelievable. Prot, I really can’t believe anybody actually could say such a thing with a straight face.

We have the paper trail. You seem to be working from a vapor trail.

 

[mercygate]

It was a play on words.
Petros-stone- Peter.
Petra-rock-

Peter, you are a small stone, on this material - petra- Peter’s confession, I will build my church.

Did you guys major in Greek linguistic hooey? You will find no evidence WHATSOEVER in koine Greek that there was any such distinction – small stone, big rock – between Petros and petra. But the subject is not part of this thread.

Besides, it is pretty clear from Acts, and Galatians that James the Lord’s brother, (Oops, there goes another thread) was the leader of the church. In Galatians Paul talks about how the “infalible 1st Pope” Peter was rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy kissing up to the men sent by James who was heading the church from Jerusalem.

Again, another thread, and this reading does not relate to ANYTHING that a Catholic would interpret as papal authority.

When Paul stated his case against forcing gentile converts to accept Jewish law, hepleaded to the head of the church, James, not Peter.

Again, another thread. But if you work out the dates, Peter had already been in Rome for 3 years by the time of that council. James was the head of the Jerusalem church. Peter would have had to come back from Rome for the event. Even today, when the Bishop of Rome visits another Bishop’s diocese, he concedes every courtesy to the Ordinary. People often have ideas about papal primacy and authority that come directly out of their own imagination and have nothing to do with actual Catholic teaching.

 

[mercygate]

And by the way; those “keys” that Peter received were the unalterable Ten Commandments!

Excuse me?

While one might say that "the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are the commandments, that would only be the substantial meaning of the point. The essential meaning of the point is that the governrance of “MY Church” – Jesus’ Church would be under the authority of Peter. Isaiah 20:22 anybody?

We’re way off topic, folks.

 

[Protestant101]

From the words themselves, and from the context, Jesus founded his Church on St. Peter. To say Jesus was founding his church on a concept, on a confession, is absurd.

I have consistently said that Jesus founded the Church on Himself only, the “concept” being that no man would be capable of being a foundation of the same capacity as would Jesus.

If you take only the one verse in Mat.16, apart from the rest of that conversation in the previous few verses; I guess you MIGHT have a case. But there is too much other evidence in the Bible to say different than you are saying here.

This is actually not way off topic; for if Peter was not the head of the Church, then it would definitely affect how prophecy is to be understood.

Jesus was not the first Protestant; I am just saying He was one; and it dosn’t matter what brand He was; it is sufficient, for now, to just say he was not Catholic.

You say that the Catholics started in the time immediately following the death of Jesus? (or thereabouts). That’s great. But now try and prove the literal lineage of the first Catholic. You can’t prove He was Catholic; but the Bible shows over and over His Protestant fervor in attacking the Tradition and falsehoods of the religious leaders of the day. It was those religious leaders that the Catholic Church came from.

 

[spauline]

I have consistently said that Jesus founded the Church on Himself only, the “concept” being that no man would be capable of being a foundation of the same capacity as would Jesus.

If you take only the one verse in Mat.16, apart from the rest of that conversation in the previous few verses; I guess you MIGHT have a case. But there is too much other evidence in the Bible to say different than you are saying here.

This is actually not way off topic; for if Peter was not the head of the Church, then it would definitely affect how prophecy is to be understood.

Jesus was not the first Protestant; I am just saying He was one; and it dosn’t matter what brand He was; it is sufficient, for now, to just say he was not Catholic.

You say that the Catholics started in the time immediately following the death of Jesus? (or thereabouts). That’s great. But now try and prove the literal lineage of the first Catholic. You can’t prove He was Catholic; but the Bible shows over and over His Protestant fervor in attacking the Tradition and falsehoods of the religious leaders of the day. It was those religious leaders that the Catholic Church came from.

Ahh, but you are definitely right that this is NOT off topic. For in point of fact, as I pointed out, this is the CRUX of the issue. For Christ came to Redeem us. And how does He redeem us? By saving our intellects and wills. How does he save our intellects? By revealing to us TRUTH. How does He save our wills? By giving us GRACE. But, WHERE DO WE GET THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH? WHERE DO WE GET THE FULLNESS OF GRACE?

For how salvation history is in an any age depends PRECISELY on how much truth and grace humanity seeks out and has available. Hence, YES, whether or not the pope is infallible has everything to do with prophecy and salvation history!

Yes, mercygate is wrong, and he is even Catholic. How we interpret and get at the root of the history of Christianity thus far depends BIG TIME on ecclesiology and the question of where one finds and gets the fullness of truth and grace!

so then, yes, this is NOT off topic. It is right on!

 

[Protestant101]

For how salvation history is in an any age depends PRECISELY on how much truth and grace humanity seeks out and has available. Hence, YES, whether or not the pope is infallible has everything to do with prophecy and salvation history!

We are in agreement on this note; except that I would add the distinction that in this topic; I am not too concerned about the Pope as being “fallible” or "infallible; I am more focusing on his role, and his origins, for this is prophecy in action. While Jesus may work through various Church leaders, (Catholic or Protestant) He has put no one individual in charge. Even if we did swallow the allegation that he somehow designated Peter with some form of leadership; we cannot prove that He did not also do the exact same for others. Peter was not a lone ranger; he worked in unity with the other apostles; and he had the exact same status and assignment from Jesus as did all the others; unless you insist on only using one verse from the Bible; rather than the many which actually make up this whole doctrine of Church leadership

 

[VWcrazy]

He has put no one individual in charge. Even if we did swallow the allegation that he somehow designated Peter with some form of leadership; we cannot prove that He did not also do the exact same for others.

Book, chapter, and verse please. This sounds more like a denial of Scripture than anything.

 

[Protestant101]

Book, chapter, and verse please. This sounds more like a denial of Scripture than anything.

This is what I have been asking Catholics for. All you do is throw one verse at me all the time. If Mat.16 is taken in context; it is impossible to conclude Peter as the first Pope. There was never a Pope apointed by Jesus. When you can show which scripture I have used in other posts that is wrong, regarding Peter; then we will have something to talk about.

 

[mercygate]

This is what I have been asking Catholics for. All you do is throw one verse at me all the time. If Mat.16 is taken in context; it is impossible to conclude Peter as the first Pope. There was never a Pope apointed by Jesus. When you can show which scripture I have used in other posts that is wrong, regarding Peter; then we will have something to talk about.

We do not rely solely on one verse for the notion that the Church Jesus founded is to have Peter as the rock upon which it is built. We also use the statement in Luke 22 that although Satan has asked to sift “all of you” like wheat, I [Jesus] have “prayed for thee [Peter] that thy faith will not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen thy brethren.” Also, Peter is always mentioned first in any list of the Apostles. He is listed first among the inner circle of Peter, James, and John. He is singled out by Jesus after the second miraculous draft of fish – taken by Peter’s boat – in John 21, where Jesus three times commands him to “feed my sheep.” MY sheep. My Church. My sheep: you, Peter, are to feed MY sheep. How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? Some of them, or all of them? Peter is to pastor Jesus’ sheep.

I apologize for my earlier irascibility and for calling your explanation of the Petros/petra thing “hooey.” It was beneath the fellowship of Christians for me to say such a thing. I understand that this bizarre kind of explanation is the sort of thing YOUR pastors “feed” you. I used to eat a lot of it myself.

 

[mercygate]

I have consistently said that Jesus founded the Church on Himself only, the “concept” being that no man would be capable of being a foundation of the same capacity as would Jesus.

Prot, Catholic teaching does not say that the rock of Peter is the same as the Rock of Christ. Not at all. Peter is seen as the head of the Church *on earth *-- the prime minister. He is not the King. He is always subject to the Person of Jesus Christ.

If you take only the one verse in Mat.16, apart from the rest of that conversation in the previous few verses; I guess you MIGHT have a case. But there is too much other evidence in the Bible to say different than you are saying here.

In my other posts I show you that we do not take konly Mt 16:18. And I have shown that even responsible Protestants don’t try to make Mt 16:18 mean something OTHER THAN “Peter.”

This is actually not way off topic; for if Peter was not the head of the Church . . .

Catholics believe Jesus is the head of the Church.

You say that the Catholics started in the time immediately following the death of Jesus? (or thereabouts). That’s great. But now try and prove the literal lineage of the first Catholic. You can’t prove He was Catholic; but the Bible shows over and over His Protestant fervor in attacking the Tradition and falsehoods of the religious leaders of the day. It was those religious leaders that the Catholic Church came from.

Sigh. We do trace the lineage of the Church, both in history and in doctrine, back to Pentecost. We have the historical record. Again, you interpret the NT in isolation from the organic foundation from which it arose. Jesus does NOT condemn tradition outright. He condemns tradition that “makes void the word of God.” Different thing altogether.

 

[Protestant101]

We do not rely solely on one verse for the notion that the Church Jesus founded is to have Peter as the rock upon which it is built. We also use the statement in Luke 22 that although Satan has asked to sift “all of you” like wheat, I [Jesus] have “prayed for thee [Peter] that thy faith will not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen thy brethren.” Also, Peter is always mentioned first in any list of the Apostles. He is listed first among the inner circle of Peter, James, and John. He is singled out by Jesus after the second miraculous draft of fish – taken by Peter’s boat – in John 21, where Jesus three times commands him to “feed my sheep.” MY sheep. My Church. My sheep: you, Peter, are to feed MY sheep. How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? Some of them, or all of them? Peter is to pastor Jesus’ sheep.

I apologize for my earlier irascibility and for calling your explanation of the Petros/petra thing “hooey.” It was beneath the fellowship of Christians for me to say such a thing. I understand that this bizarre kind of explanation is the sort of thing YOUR pastors “feed” you. I used to eat a lot of it myself.

Ah; that’s OK, I didn’t realize you were being “irascibility;” but thanks for teaching me this new word. I will have to watch out for this myself; it is easy to get too excited with some subjects.

Can you explain more your comment re Luke 22? How do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus did not pray this prayer for other believers than Peter?

With John 21; how does it disprove that many others besides Peter are to feed His sheep?

 

[mercygate]

Ah; that’s OK, I didn’t realize you were being “irascibility;” but thanks for teaching me this new word. I will have to watch out for this myself; it is easy to get too excited with some subjects.

Thank you, my Brother. I am humbled by your graciousness.

Can you explain more your comment re Luke 22? How do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus did not pray this prayer for other believers than Peter?

No explanation necessary. It’s just plain Greek. In Greek, Jesus uses the word “y’all”: Satan has asked to sift y’'all 'like wheat" – then, still talking only to Peter, Jesus changes to the singular: "but I have prayed for thee (which is antique English intimate form for one person) and when thou hast turned again (Catholics and other Christians see this as a prophetic reference to Peter’s denial), strengthen thy brethren. Peter is going to be the stabilizer of the whole group.

With John 21; how does it disprove that many others besides Peter are to feed His sheep?

Many others ARE to feed His sheep. But Peter alone is taken aside. Peter alone is given the threefold commission. Peter does not operate in isolation. In Mt. 18:18, we see that all of the Apostles are given the power of binding and loosing. But only to Peter does Jesus promise the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Catholic view, Peter’s position is one of authority, but it is legitimate authority.

This is me talkin’ now, I have never heard anybody teach this: At the last supper, when Jesus washes the disciples’ feet, and Peter cries: “not my feet only but my hands and my head!” – I see a foretelling of the Petrine ministry: to serve with the hands and to guide in doctrine by “using his head.”

Another point where people get all warm and fuzzy about Peter is that when the crowds press Jesus at the seashore, he gets int PETER’S boat to teach. Is that something to build doctrine on? Certainly it is not enough, but it’s THERE. Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat. Still does.

Although all the apostles have authority directly from Christ, their authority stands partly in their unity. At the same place where Jesus promises to the eleven that he will send the Spirit to “guide them into all the truth” he prays that “they all might be one.” Catholics believe that Peter, as the key-bearer is the centerpiece of that unity. Therefore, APART from Peter, one parts from the Church Jesus calls “my Church.”

 

[VWcrazy]

This is what I have been asking Catholics for. All you do is throw one verse at me all the time. If Mat.16 is taken in context; it is impossible to conclude Peter as the first Pope. There was never a Pope apointed by Jesus. When you can show which scripture I have used in other posts that is wrong, regarding Peter; then we will have something to talk about.

Catholics give you many quotes from Scripture, but you simply deny Scripture.

 

[Protestant101]

Catholics give you many quotes from Scripture, but you simply deny Scripture.

You must realize that in my statement of “only one verse;” we are talking specifically of Mat.16:18; and that I am perceiving the responses here to the allegation about Peter being the first Pope, as doting on this verse, at the exclusion of many other verses which would not support the Catholic philosophy about Peter being the designated head of the Church.

I am trying to get some focus on the textual context of Mat.16:18 by considering what whole, that this part, was attached to. The “whole” being some surrounding verses, before and after, and the “part” being vs.18.

Therefore, I am not “denying” scripture; I am trying to examine it:
Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
It is interesting to see what Jesus said to Peter, (the supposed rock of the church) just a few verses later, in verse 23. Plus, in vs.22, Peter could not even accept the cardinal doctrine of Christianity; that of Christ, and Him crucified. But, Jesus did not comit to build the Church on something so “fallible;” rather, it was to Peter’s confession that He was “the Christ” that Jesus made the reference to building the Church upon “this Rock.” Vs.16-17 show what the reference and context of verse 18 was connected to. Only The Holy Spirit could reveal such a truth to Peter, and only Jesus, the solid Rock, the Cornerstone, can be the Foundation of the Church. It is Jesus only; not Jesus and something else.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Thank God for participants on this site like you and Pophead, et al
Without y’all, I’d be watching too much football.

I come here for entertainment, and you never fail me.

Thanks.

Go SC!

peace

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;2699289:

QUOTE]

Thank God for participants on this site like you and Pophead, et al
Without y’all, I’d be watching too much football.

I come here for entertainment, and you never fail me.

Thanks.

Go SC!

peace

LOL; now that’s funny. Hope I don’t disappoint you as I need to be away as of tonight for a while. Till next time, may God contine to bless.

 

[mercygate]

You must realize that in my statement of “only one verse;” we are talking specifically of Mat.16:18; and that I am perceiving the responses here to the allegation about Peter being the first Pope, as doting on this verse, at the exclusion of many other verses which would not support the Catholic philosophy about Peter being the designated head of the Church.

I hope we’ve cleared up that misconception for you!

I am trying to get some focus on the textual context of Mat.16:18 by considering what whole, that this part, was attached to. The “whole” being some surrounding verses, before and after, and the “part” being vs.18.

Therefore, I am not “denying” scripture; I am trying to examine it:

It is interesting to see what Jesus said to Peter, (the supposed rock of the church) just a few verses later, in verse 23. Plus, in vs.22, Peter could not even accept the cardinal doctrine of Christianity; that of Christ, and Him crucified. But, Jesus did not comit to build the Church on something so “fallible;” rather, it was to Peter’s confession that He was “the Christ” that Jesus made the reference to building the Church upon “this Rock.” Vs.16-17 show what the reference and context of verse 18 was connected to. Only The Holy Spirit could reveal such a truth to Peter, and only Jesus, the solid Rock, the Cornerstone, can be the Foundation of the Church. It is Jesus only; not Jesus and something else.Prot – we have lots of threads on Peter’s primacy; most of 'em contentious and offering more heat than light.

I want to ask you one question. Do you think it is likely that the Church that traces its history all the way back to Christ, the Church that claims Peter as the Lord’s Vicar on earth based on Our Lord’s own words, would not have taken these apparently detractive texts you mention into consideration when clarifying the teaching on Petrine primacy?

There is no Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma that is contrary to Scripture.

You have landed on the issue of authority. Whose authority? Catholics believe that it is the authority of Jesus Christ to say what He means (I will build my church “upon this rock” which, as shown earlier, is Peter and can be none other). Catholics believe that because He is God, Jesus has done what He said he would do: build (and building) His Church. Since He, himself is the head of the Church, we honor His words and remain in Communion with the successors of Peter, continuing as a united family until He comes again.

 

[mgrfin]

I hope we’ve cleared up that misconception for you!

Prot – we have lots of threads on Peter’s primacy; most of 'em contentious and offering more heat than light.

I want to ask you one question. Do you think it is likely that the Church that traces its history all the way back to Christ, the Church that claims Peter as the Lord’s Vicar on earth based on Our Lord’s own words, would not have taken these apparently detractive texts you mention into consideration when clarifying the teaching on Petrine primacy?

There is no Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma that is contrary to Scripture.

You have landed on the issue of authority. Whose authority? Catholics believe that it is the authority of Jesus Christ to say what He means (I will build my church “upon this rock” which, as shown earlier, is Peter and can be none other). Catholics believe that because He is God, Jesus has done what He said he would do: build (and building) His Church. Since He, himself is the head of the Church, we honor His words and remain in Communion with the successors of Peter, continuing as a united family until He comes again.

You say that Peter could not accept the cardinal doctrine of Christianity, “Christ, and him crucified”

After the Resurrection, Peter accepted it all. His preaching on Pentecost should be adequate evidence of that.

**I thought the cardinal teaching of Chrisitanity was the Resurrection. **

If Jesus is not risen from the dead, we are all fools, according to St. Paul.

Protestants get confused on this point as to what is the cardinal teaching of our religion. There were lots of Jews crucified; only one rose from the dead.

And of course Protestants are not going to accept the Primacy of Peter under any circumstances. To argue with them is to no avail. To accept Peter as the head of the Church is to cast aside all that Luther and Calvin, and the hundreds of other heretics who have moved throughout history. What Peter (and his successors) define means that opposition to defined doctrines cannot exist.

If Peter and his successors are at the head of the Church, then you have to listen to him. They are not going to do that, are they ‘101’?