What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Sarah_Jane]

Ephesians 2 says that the Church was built upon the Apostles (including Peter) and Christ as the cornerstone.

“The Lord Himself compared Himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the cornerstone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles, and from it the Church receives durability and consolidation.” (Dei Verbum, Vatican II, 6)

"Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. (Ibid. 18)

 

[Sarah_Jane]

And, if they sincerely believe that - they should by all means convert to Catholicism who along with Mormons are the only ones who believe in Peter’s papal succession.

Mormons believe in papacy?

 

[Church_Militant]

ahimsaman72:

You can say all day long that Christ founded Catholicism. That doesn’t make it true. You can say it was begun by Peter and Christ gave Peter the keys and built the church upon him. That doesn’t make it true. Christ knew how fallible men are. That’s why He built the church upon Himself - not a mere man. The same man you claim it was built on and use two verses of Scripture to back it up is the same man who Christ called Satan because he did not have the things of God in mind.

Peace…

Peter wasn’t Satan, nor from the context of that passage can one assume in any way that that is what Christ meant. If you do that is your problem…not ours or the Catholic Church. There is a great deal of other scripture that shows Christ DID put Peter in charge. things like “Strengthen your brothers…” and “Feed my lambs…feed my sheep” all tie into the “rock” passage as well as others. You can argue all day about this stuff but you have no Biblical or historical leg to stand on…Just a lot of antiCatholic heat…
Nor does it lessen the truth of the facts I have stated. Who says YOUR interpretation is correct…as for the single scriptures…ya don’t EVEN wanna go there Bub since you haven’t proved to a contextual critc yourself.

You can’t deny the historical FACT of Jesus founding he Catholic church…that’s a ludicrous denial of verifiable history just because it doesn’t fit w/ your personal vendetta against Catholicism.

I mean…just what are you here for then? to argue? to attack?

 

[michaelp]

“The Lord Himself compared Himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the cornerstone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles, and from it the Church receives durability and consolidation.” (Dei Verbum, Vatican II, 6)

"Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. (Ibid. 18)

Quoting from the Catechism does not help. I don’t accept it as infallible. These statement are question begging.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Sarah Jane:

Mormons believe in papacy?

They believe in the primacy of Peter as leader of the apostles. Sorry - no they don’t believe in the papacy. They do believe in apostolic succesion, primacy of Peter and the priesthood. Heck, that’s how they can come up with their doctrine that Joseph Smith started regarding apostasy and restoration of the priesthood.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

michaelp:

Quoting from the Catechism does not help. I don’t accept it as infallible. These statement are question begging.

I just want to say that the Church thinks like you for this :

Ephesians 2 says that the Church was built upon the Apostles (including Peter) and Christ as the cornerstone.

 

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

Peter wasn’t Satan, nor from the context of that passage can one assume in any way that that is what Christ meant. If you do that is your problem…not ours or the Catholic Church. There is a great deal of other scripture that shows Christ DID put Peter in charge. things like “Strengthen your brothers…” and “Feed my lambs…feed my sheep” all tie into the “rock” passage as well as others. You can argue all day about this stuff but you have no Biblical or historical leg to stand on…Just a lot of antiCatholic heat…
Nor does it lessen the truth of the facts I have stated. Who says YOUR interpretation is correct…as for the single scriptures…ya don’t EVEN wanna go there Bub since you haven’t proved to a contextual critc yourself.

You can’t deny the historical FACT of Jesus founding he Catholic church…that’s a ludicrous denial of verifiable history just because it doesn’t fit w/ your personal vendetta against Catholicism.

I mean…just what are you here for then? to argue? to attack?

I would never deny the fact that Jesus started the Catholic Church. I would just define catholic according to its definition, “universal” or the entire Body of Christ. Isn’t it anachronistic (reading a later definition of a term into its earlier definiton) to define what the early Church meant by catholic to mean Roman Catholic?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Sarah Jane:

I just want to say that the Church thinks like you for this :

Oh, ok. Thanks.

Hey, by the way, don’t you love these faces? You can say something mean and then put a smiley face and it is not so mean anymore . Just kidding, I never want to come across as mean . See, you just thought that I was being sarcastic. Right? Ok, ok, I know I am weird. If you have not discovered this by now . . .

Blessings,

Michael

 

[ahimsaman72]

Church Militant:

Peter wasn’t Satan, nor from the context of that passage can one assume in any way that that is what Christ meant. If you do that is your problem…not ours or the Catholic Church. There is a great deal of other scripture that shows Christ DID put Peter in charge. things like “Strengthen your brothers…” and “Feed my lambs…feed my sheep” all tie into the “rock” passage as well as others. You can argue all day about this stuff but you have no Biblical or historical leg to stand on…Just a lot of antiCatholic heat…
Nor does it lessen the truth of the facts I have stated. Who says YOUR interpretation is correct…as for the single scriptures…ya don’t EVEN wanna go there Bub since you haven’t proved to a contextual critc yourself.

You can’t deny the historical FACT of Jesus founding he Catholic church…that’s a ludicrous denial of verifiable history just because it doesn’t fit w/ your personal vendetta against Catholicism.

I mean…just what are you here for then? to argue? to attack?

For the record, I have no anti-Catholic heat. The only heat has come from your posts - not mine. You always seem angry, as I have pointed out before and like you have once again shown us by your last sentence. And I am arguing and attacking?

Strengthen my sheep, feed my lambs, etc. could be said of every pastor in every congregation in the Christian faith. To build a system and faith based on such ambiguous verses is irresponsible.

I have to say, since coming here to the forums, I’ve never been called “Bub”. That’s a first. I’ve been called worse .

One doesn’t have to be a textual critic to know one’s Bible or faith. If so, there would be alot fewer Christians in the world .

And also for the record, I don’t have any personal vendetta against Catholicism. You assumed that - but you know what assume does, don’t you? Makes an ---- out of you and me. I am pretty open-minded. If you knew me well, you would know that.

I originally came to the forums because I came to the website looking for answers. I then considered the possibly of converting. Then when I came to the forums and saw what the Church deeply believes and says - I changed my mind. I went to see a priest - I visited mass a couple times - found it very nice and appealing.

When in doubt - do not assume.

Peace…

 

[michaelp]

ahimsaman72:

Strengthen my sheep, feed my lambs, etc. could be said of every pastor in every congregation in the Christian faith. To build a system and faith based on such ambiguous verses is irresponsible.

Very good. This is the exact point that I would make. To take such a passage and turn it into the RC system is not justified to me. In fact, one could make a better arguement contextually that Christ only said this to Peter three times *because he is the only one that needed to be restored since he denied Christ three times. *

Thanks for the insights.

I appreciate them from everyone . . .

Michael

 

[Sarah_Jane]

michaelp:

In fact, one could make a better arguement contextually that Christ only said this to Peter three times *because he is the only one that needed to be restored since he denied Christ three times. *

The others Apostles (except St. John) denied, in a sense, Christ since they were not present at the time of the crucifixion.

 

[MrS]

dennisknapp:

Michael,
Show me an Evangelical in the early Church and I’ll give you 100 bucks. (100 buck may or may not be figurative, I am in school ya know)

Peace

Does ST LUKE THE EVANGELISTical get the “C” note?:whacky:

 

[michaelp]

Sarah Jane:

The others Apostles (except St. John) denied, in a sense, Christ since they were not present at the time of the crucifixion.

This is where your hermeneutics comes into play. And this is what I am talking about by using a common sense hermeneutic (not impying by any means that you do not have common sense ).

Here is what you have to ask yourself:

1. Who’s denial is brought most prominently to the attention of the reader? Of course it is Peter.
2. Why did the author give the details of the three denials followed by the three affirmations?
3. What was the author’s intent with this passage:
   1. 
      *]to affirm Peter as the head of the church with unquestioned authority. And that this authority was to be passed on to successors? That would be reading something into the authors intent that just cannot be found unless you place it there yourself. With this hermeneutic you can make the Scriptures say just about anything.
      *]to illustrate a basic principle that even when people fail, even to the point of weakness in denying of Christ because of outside pressure, God’s grace is there. And that God uses us in spit of our sinful past.
   Now which one do you believe? It can’t be both since the first is loaded with eisegesis (reading preconcieved theology into a text rather than drawing your theology from the text).
   
   Isn’t this at least conceivable to you?
   
   Michael

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Michael,

“Truthfully, I am willing to believe the system and submit to the Pope if there was anything clear or even remotely clear in Scripture. I just don’t see it. I am not too biased about Protestantism. I have no love for a system . . . believe me. Only one authority is justified as being infallible and that is Scripture. If God wanted us to set up the system that Rome has, He could have, indeed, should have been more clear. I understand Luther’s statement very much when he said that he is bound by reason and by the word of God.”

I think an analogy would be proper here.
Let’s say that what we are trying to do here is put together a historical puzzle. And let’s say that when this puzzle is finally put together it will reveal to us the solution to our disagreement. But what I see you saying before we start is, “we can only use half of the pieces.” All I am asking is where does the historical evidence point? Can you actually find your counterpart in the early Church? Show me an Evangelical in the early Church and I’ll give you 100 bucks. (100 buck may or may not be figurative, I am in school ya know)

Peace

What are your standards for evangelical? I need $100!

Also, did you get what I said above your comment? There is no way to justify the system outside of pragmatics. And the pragmatics are not evern very convincing to me (although I understand them and sympathize with them).

 

[MrS]

ahimsaman72:

Strengthen my sheep, feed my lambs, etc. could be said of every pastor in every congregation in the Christian faith. To build a system and faith based on such ambiguous verses is irresponsible.

Peace…

But it wasn’t was it. It was only said to Peter. And Jesus first gave the power to bind and loose ONLY to Peter, then later ONLY to the Apostles as a group.

And the power to bind and loose, to forgive sins, to “Do this in My memory”, and every power Jesus gave, written in the NT has never been recinded.

Sadly they have been “borrowed” by men without authority. Hence the mess we have with conflicting theologies.

On the other hand, Jesus did tell us that men would come with their errors, so that the Church would see thoses errors, and thus know the Truth.

Thinking of converting… that means God is opening your eyes. Don’t shut them to a Truth because it is difficult to live - being a sincere Catholic is the hardest thing to do. But know that if you choose to walk away because the words are difficult to understand, Jesus will let you…and await your return.

We cannot come to Jesus on OUR terms.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

OK, why do catholics on this site disagree? Because the infallible Magisterium is sometimes hard to interpret? You still have to make up your own mind.

Hi Michael!

A Catholic has to make up his own mind is whether or not to accept what the Church teaches. He doesn’t have to pick from various conflicting and contradictory teachings.

Infallibility does not cover how something is taught or even if something is taught. It doesn’t assure that the Church will speak up when she ought or that the way she words something is the clearest possible way of stating. It only assures that what is taught is free from error.

Therefore, if something has been stated in such a manner that it is causing confusion among the faithful then it will likely be reworded or clarified. Your example of “no salvation outside the Church” is a good one. As the state of Christianity changed the teaching was restated (not changed) in such a way as to make clearer the meaning. Those who, for example, understand it to mean that anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church cannot be saved have made up their minds not to accept what the Church has taught on the issue. They are not being forced to decided between conflicting teachings on the matter.

All you have done is pushed the individual interpretation from the infallible Scripture to the infallible Magisterium.

Scripture is inerrant. The Magesterium, when teaching in union with the pope, is infallible. Not quite the same thing. Interestingly, I have spoken with a few individual Protestants who told me that they, themselves, are infallible interpreters of scripture. Thing is, they held conflicting interpretations. Go figure.

It is always and finally the responsibility of the individual. I will just do this with Scripture and you do it with the Magisterium. I deal with our divisions over the interpretation of Scripture, you deal with the divisions over the interpretation of the Magisterium.

There are no divisions. There is one body of teaching. Individuals are choosing for themselves whether or not to accept the Church’s teaching.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

No, you are not being rude. You are just giving your opinion based upon the research you have done with all the preunderstandings that you already have. We all do this. My studies of the give just the opposite conclusion. But, hey, what do we do?

Have a great day,

Michael

Hi Michael!

I’d be interested in checking that out. Could ou cite a few sources?
Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[MrS]

inf

 

[MrS]

Infallibility is a negative protection. The pope is not infallible, nor is the magisterium They are fallible men.

HOWEVER, the Holy Spirit graces them (and only them) with the protection of infallibility. When speaking “from the chair of Peter”, the Pope is prevented from error in the matters of faith and morals. Also is true for the Bishops in union with him. (not some bishop somewhere who might say Jews don’t require Jesus for salvation, or other off the wall teachings.)

Additionally, when this happens, and a Truth is explained, or a Doctrine clarified, it is binding on:

All Christians…in all ages…for all time.

Not just Catholics, but also Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelicals etc, etc, etc This means YOU!:yup:
One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

I am talking about justification for the system. It is question begging to say that the Church is the authority because it says it is. It would be irresponsible for me to accept such a system based upon this.

Michael

Hi Michael!

The Church isn’t the authority because she says she is, she’s the authority because God said she is:

1 Tim. 3:15 But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to act in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
**

** Acts 15

---

---

In Christ,
Nancy