The "Catholic System" Puts Us Under The Law

[geno75]

Mickey:

Apostolic succession has been thoroughly explained to you. If you refuse to accept it, that is your choice–you have freewill.

But don’t you dare insinuate that Catholics do not have faith in the name of Jesus. That is rude and uncharitable. For shame! :tsktsk:

I was referring to the system, not the people.

Only Jesus saves. Total reliance on him and him only. Free from any one man putting me or any other believers in Jesus under any law to achieve Gods gift. Free to ask the holy spirit to read the Word of God and to ask others to come into our lives to share the word.

But yet to some, this is considered rebellious.

For shame! For this view of Jesus’ believers is rude and uncharitable! :tsktsk:

God Bless <><

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

I was referring to the system, not the people.

The bishops, priests, deacons, nuns, monastics, and the people are “the system”. And we are all united to Christ.

Shame on you.

 

[Nicene]

geno75:

I was referring to the system, not the people.

Only Jesus saves. Total reliance on him and him only. Free from any one man putting me or any other believers in Jesus under any law to achieve Gods gift. Free to ask the holy spirit to read his word and to ask others to come into our lives to share the word.

But yet to some, this is considered rebellious.

For shame! And for this view of Jesus’ believers is rude and uncharitable! :tsktsk:

God Bless <><

Serious question, though you probably will think it uncharitable: Why did Jesus start a church and not just hand out bibles instead?

Next you say you are free from the law (which is true, you are free from the old law) but why do you think you are free from Christ’s laws?

John 14:15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Are you picking and choosing which commandments to follow?

You don’t really need to evangelize do you? Can’t you just hand out bibles instead of sharing (your interpretation) his word and let the Holy Spirit read his word to them instead of sharing what you think his word means?

Do graces flow through the church from Jesus, or from the scripture?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

If Judas knew Peter was the supreme head of Jesus church and satan has entered Judas, dont you think satan would see to it that the pharisees took care of Peter also?.

God is mightier than satan. It was not meant to be.

geno75:

Remember, Jesus states that satan is asking to sift ALL his disciples

Let’s look at Luke 22:31-32.

Simon, Simon, satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to me, strengthen your brethren.

The first two times the word “you” is used, it is translated from the Greek Koine as plural. So in effect, Jesus is saying, “Simon, Simon, satan has asked for “all of you” that he may sift “you all” as wheat.

The second two times the word “you” is used, it is translated from the Greek Koine as singular. “But I have prayed for **you (Peter), **that your faith should not fail; and when you (Peter) have returned to me, strengthen your brethren.

We must all be united with Christ, through Peter, so as not to be sifted by satan.

 

[geno75]

Catholic interpretaion of Matthew 16?
Through Peters confession of who Jesus is, Judas not only learns who Jesus really is and is confirmed right from the Messiahs mouth, but also it is revealed to Judas who Peter is, the rock, the pope, the papal office. Jesus tells his disciples, including Judas, not to tell anyone who his identity is, but leaves Peters positon and importance in the church exposed to Judas and ultimately satan, when he enters Judas’ body.
:nope:

 

[NotWorthy]

Post 122 addresses this pretty well.

Notworthy

 

[Church_Militant]

geno75:

I was referring to the system, not the people.

Only Jesus saves. Total reliance on him and him only. Free from any one man

putting me or any other believers in Jesus under any law to achieve Gods gift. Free to ask the holy spirit to read the Word of God and to ask others to come into our lives to share the word.

But yet to some, this is considered rebellious.

For shame! For this view of Jesus’ believers is rude and uncharitable! :tsktsk:

God Bless <><This whole statement is hooey…You are so busy pushing the anti-Catholic rhetoric that you have been fed by non-Catholics who, as we have shown again and again, do not really have a working knowledge of Catholicism that you don’t seem to have even heard of considered what has been offered.

You can assert anything that you please, but there is no “man putting me or any other believers in Jesus under any law to achieve Gods gift.” This is just more anti-Catholic rhetoric and the fact that you persist in asserting it shows an apparent lack of honest interest in discovering any truth for yourself.

Personally, I feel much liberated that I am no longer under “men” who kept me “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Ephesians 4:14), but at last have the solid assurance that what I read and understand of the Word of God is also something that is verifiably the same as that which those who were discipled by the apostles themselves and has been believed by Christians for 2,000 years. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

When the reformers departed from these things it was rebellion, or else they’d have returned when the problems had been dealt with. Their post-reformation step children are worse still since they persist in that 500 year old series of ever deepening errors. That’s not the fault of the Catholic Church, but again, the egos of men.

It’s not a lack of charity to point out errors…it’s a lack of charity NOT to.

There is no “system” to Catholicsm. It is a living faith that changes lives every day, and that faith is made up people like myself and Mickey, and all the other Catholics on here that faithfully practice our most holy faith, while enduring and refuting endless misunderstandings, misinformation, and outright lies about the Catholic faith that gullible individuals choose to buy into, because they hear it from their pulpits, read it in anti-Catholic books or on websites…all from people who either make a living off of selling this stuff or who in good conscience have been decieved themselves. Very likely like you.
Pax tecum,

 

[geno75]

Mickey:

God is mightier than satan. It was not meant to be.

If you believe that, then quit downplaying his word, his written word that is.

Why would Jesus expose the importance of a
“office” that one ordinary man would fill in his church to the one who would betray him then go out of his way to tell the same betrayer not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) is. This doesnt make sense at all.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

If you believe that, then quit downplaying his word, his written word that is.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
1Cor 13: 1-3

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Jane
As you well know, what I am asking for is not at all unreasonable. This goes back 1700 years as Rome began to assert itself in a way that other Bishops did not agree with. You have tried to frame this as some kind of radical statement. What I am asking for is at the core of the Orthodox/Catholic split, is it not? At the core of this debate, is my request that Catholicism prove its claim of Papal supremacy. Everyone knows this is the primary issue that caused a massive split 1000 years ago.

Siding with the Orthodox version of the schism does not strenghthen your position against papal authority as a Protestant.

My understanding of your original intent here was to “prove” that Peter did not have successors. The title is “Peter’s successors” and your first two posts asks the question:
Fredericks:

Did the early Christian church think that Peter had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome specifically was that person? In none of these quotes, will you see any of the Bishops of Rome referred to, or thought of, as head of the “Church”.
Early Christians traced Rome back to PAUL AND PETER.

Fredericks:

NONE of those support the contention that Peter had a specific successor as head of the “ENTIRE CHURCH”. Only Rome, and by all accounts, is traceable to PETER AND PAUL.
Where is the proof from the first two years of Christianity that Peter’s had a successor as the head of the church?

Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is his successor. The Bible does not mention a successor for Peter and early Christian history does not support the contentions of Catholicism.

So, it appears from your first posts that you were looking for proof that the Bishop of Rome succeeds specifically from Peter, not from both Peter and Paul. Is that right? In the first post you gave no cut-off date for this proof. It was only after you had solid quotes on this from around 250 “C.E.” that 200 A.D. became the cut-off date. You rely heavily on Eusebius but he wasn’t even born until 260 A.D. You’ve broken your own rule by relying on a source post 200 A.D. That cancels out your entire premise already without even mentioning the fact that Eusebius does not contradict papal authority.

Also, can you explain why a Christian would use the politically correct "CE - “Common Era” versus “Anno Domini” (Year of our Lord)? I have seen you refer to A.D. dates this way throughout the thread. Don’t take Christ out of our dating system please.

 

[geno75]

Mickey:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
1Cor 13: 1-3

And your point is?
Do I need to search all of your posts to see how “charitable” you have been? Of course not, that would not be “charitable.”

 

[Church_Militant]

**If you believe that, then quit downplaying his word, his written word that is. **

Why would Jesus expose the importance of a
“office” that one ordinary man would fill in his church to the one who would betray him then go out of his way to tell the same betrayer not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) is. This doesnt make sense at all.You cannot verify that what you say the Word of God says coincides with the beliefs of the very guys who led the church at the end of the 1st century, who were taught by the apostles themselves and who gave their lives for what they believed.

So…what makes your modern interpretation that does not agree with either the New Testament or the early church worthy of our time to hear it? If it is not the same as what the early church believed and what the church has believed for 2,000 years why in the world would anyone consider it the authentic message of Christ?

Yet the papal successors of Peter passed down to us that same teaching. Who are you to offer something different? Just because you have a copy of the Bible that you have read for yourself is no guarentee that your interpretation of any given passage is correct, especially when it is different than what the church has believed for 2,000 years and has been handed down through that succession of popes all the way!
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Eden]

geno75:

If you believe that, then quit downplaying his word, his written word that is.

Why would Jesus expose the importance of a
“office” that one ordinary man would fill in his church to the one who would betray him then go out of his way to tell the same betrayer not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) is. This doesnt make sense at all.

Unless you have proof contradicting the Church’s claim that Peter had successors and was the Bishop of Rome, please start your own thread about the written word. I have noticed that you often come into threads with the sole purpose of distraction when the thread-maker begins floundering.

 

[geno75]

Church Militant:

You cannot verify that what you say the Word of God says coincides with the beliefs of the very guys who led the church at the end of the 1st century, who were taught by the apostles themselves and who gave their lives for what they believed.

Pax vobiscum,

OOOhhhh yes I can!
Eve was taught by Adam himself, and look what happened to them!

 

[Eden]

geno75:

OOOhhhh yes I can!
Eve was taught by Adam himself, and look what happened to them!

**WARNING: DISTRACTION ALERT! **

Fredericks did not ask for scriptural proof for the primacy of Peter. He used quotes from Eusebius’ “Church History”. Please start your own thread about the Bible, the papacy and why Jesus would use sinful human beings to carry on His work. You are off-topic.

 

[Church_Militant]

geno75:

OOOhhhh yes I can!
Eve was taught by Adam himself, and look what happened to them!

I’m sorry…did you misss this part?

Originally Posted by Church Militant

You cannot verify that what you say the Word of God says coincides with the beliefs of the very guys who led the church at the end of the 1st century, who were taught by the apostles themselves and who gave their lives for what they believed.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

And your point is?

Perhaps you could pray about it.

 

[DianJo]

geno75:

To get back on topic-

There seems to be something a little odd about the idea of Peter being made pope in Matthew 16.

For one, Jesus starts off by asking his disciples who people say he is. The disciples give him some distorted answers back. Then he asks them-“Who do you say I am?” We know Jesus isn’t having a idenity crisis. It seems Jesus is making sure his disciples dont have a identity crisis of who he(Jesus) is.

So Peter confesses who Jesus is. Jesus informs Peter that revalation was not giving to him by man, but by God. Then there is the rock, Peter, keys thingy that to some signify pope.

Then this section of Matthew 16 ends with Jesus warning his disciples not to tell ANYONE who his identity is-the Christ, the Messiah. Peters confession of Jesus was also written in Mark and Luke.

IT IS IMPORTANT to note that in the gospels of Mark and Luke, the authors stress the importance of putting in their writings that Jesus warned his Apostles the same thing in Matthew, not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) really is.

So, according to Matthew 16, some believe that Jesus revealed to all the disciples that Peter is pope, or head of the church Jesus will build, THEN warned his disciples not to tell ANYone who he(Jesus) is. So doesn’t that leave poor 'ol Peter sorta kinda left hanging out to dry?!

In other words, this interpretation could sound like this-
Peter-“Your the Christ”
Jesus-“Your the head of my church, but dont tell anyone who I am! Everybody hear that! Judas, this means you to!”

Its safe to say Judas was present when Peter confessed who Jesus is. We know that satan entered into Judas, and Judas left to betray Jesus. We also know that Jesus said to Peter that satan is asking to sift his disciples as wheat, but prays that Peters faith will not fail and to stregthen his brothers when he turns back.

If Judas knew Peter was the supreme head of Jesus church and satan has entered Judas, dont you think satan would see to it that the pharisees took care of Peter also? Satan could kill two birds with one stone, the messiah and his first pope, or so he thinks. Jesus prays for Peters faith not to fail. If Peter gets killed when Jesus gets crucified, the church could be seriously destined to die. Jesus makes it known that Peter will be needed to stregthen his disciples. The pharisee’s want Jesus, if they knew Jesus had one man and a office to head his church, they would see to it that was taken care of right away. Remember, Jesus states that satan is asking to sift ALL his disciples, but doesnt ask for Peter personally. Why isnt this so? If Jesus knew that his idenity must be keep hushed for awhile longer, why would he distingush who the head of his church would be in front of the one who will betray him? It totally does not make sense.

Where in the world did you come up with this interpretation? I have never heard anyone ask these questions about these passages.

Chronologically I would venture to say that the Apostles didn’t understand the implications of what Jesus had just said - or maybe they did considering that Peter was always the first among them.

Regardless, remember that at the time of our Lord’s passion, the apostles had not yet been strengthened in their faith. They were running like scared rabbits. It wasn’t until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon them, that they “had no fear” of preaching the gospel message. Peter, very straightforwardly, came out and converted 3000 persons that day! And, thus, began his ministry and held the place of prominence from that moment on.

So, what you are asking doesn’t make any sense. No one, including satan, except Jesus would’ve really understood the implications of the “rock” statement. Satan was only interested at that time with bringing Jesus down. I don’t think he would’ve been interested in bringing down the first pope at that time. It wasn’t until after Pentecost that all was understood through the Holy Spirit.

 

[geno75]

Church Militant:

This whole statement is hooey…You are so busy pushing the anti-Catholic rhetoric that you have been fed by non-Catholics who, as we have shown again and again, do not really have a working knowledge of Catholicism that you don’t seem to have even heard of considered what has been offered.

You can assert anything that you please, but there is no “man putting me or any other believers in Jesus under any law to achieve Gods gift.” This is just more anti-Catholic rhetoric and the fact that you persist in asserting it shows an apparent lack of honest interest in discovering any truth for yourself.

Personally, I feel much liberated that I am no longer under “men” who kept me “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Ephesians 4:14), but at last have the solid assurance that what I read and understand of the Word of God is also something that is verifiably the same as that which those who were discipled by the apostles themselves and has been believed by Christians for 2,000 years. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

When the reformers departed from these things it was rebellion, or else they’d have returned when the problems had been dealt with. Their post-reformation step children are worse still since they persist in that 500 year old series of ever deepening errors. That’s not the fault of the Catholic Church, but again, the egos of men.

It’s not a lack of charity to point out errors…it’s a lack of charity NOT to.

There is no “system” to Catholicsm. It is a living faith that changes lives every day, and that faith is made up people like myself and Mickey, and all the other Catholics on here that faithfully practice our most holy faith, while enduring and refuting endless misunderstandings, misinformation, and outright lies about the Catholic faith that gullible individuals choose to buy into, because they hear it from their pulpits, read it in anti-Catholic books or on websites…all from people who either make a living off of selling this stuff or who in good conscience have been decieved themselves. Very likely like you.
Pax tecum,

So tell me, do you believe that God works with his people, his believers in his son Jesus Christ that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he provide for those who call out Jesus’ name that do not belong to the catholic church? Does he love those who call out his name, praise his son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that do not belong to the catholic church?

Are you saying God opened up salvation to the entire world through shedding of blood his only son, but only through “apostolic succession?” And not by calling out his name?

 

[Mickey]

Just for the record. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History has this comment:

…Peter, that powerful and great apostle, who by his courage took the lead of all the rest…
(in reference to battling a heresy)

and

He (Peter), like a noble commander of God fortified with a divine armor, bore the precious merchandise of the revealed light from the East to those in the West, announcing the light itself and salutary doctrine of the soul the proclamation of the kingdom of God.

But then again, as Eden says, this was well past the self-imposed Fredricks time frame.