S
spina1953
Guest
If not the apostles who then? Bootsy? Did not Christ tell Peter would be the Rock that he would build His Church on? And is that not then the Catholic Church?
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
Is the Roman Catholic Church united? Is it true that some bishops teach that Holy Communion should not be given to a divorced, remarried couple, whereas others teach that there may be circumstances where this is allowed even if the previous marriage has not been officially annulled?
H
hope
Guest
Deleted this message
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
It is obvious that Peter was elevated by Jesus to lead the Church. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69), Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter’s boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). SL Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15)
Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. Pope is only a title and no different when Paul referred to himself as begotten the Corinthians.
Jesus spoke Aramaic. The word He used was Cephas which only means rock. When the gospel was written the Greek word, which by the way was an archaic meaning of not a small pebble but a smaller rock, was written to reflect the masculine. Something that was not needed in the Aramaic language. It makes no sense that Jesus would say you are rock and then change that rock to mean Himself. In Mathew 18:18 no keys are mentioned only Peter was given the keys. Keys in the bible were symbols of authority.
Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. Pope is only a title and no different when Paul referred to himself as begotten the Corinthians.
Jesus spoke Aramaic. The word He used was Cephas which only means rock. When the gospel was written the Greek word, which by the way was an archaic meaning of not a small pebble but a smaller rock, was written to reflect the masculine. Something that was not needed in the Aramaic language. It makes no sense that Jesus would say you are rock and then change that rock to mean Himself. In Mathew 18:18 no keys are mentioned only Peter was given the keys. Keys in the bible were symbols of authority.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Great we are agreed then.
God has no problem creating fallible Churches which still perdure and preach and convert well enough…just like most other religions.
But as I say these sorts of eternal discussions hinge on how we define fallible.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Can you summarise your point in one sentence/question perhaps?
The Church regularly changes literal Scrptural teachings over time. Usury for example. Those who believe in absolute infallibility use various mechanisms to sanitise the problem such as the literal Scriptural meaning is not always the actual meaning (a technique applied inconsistantly to different parts of the bible) or by saying it has to harmonise with other parts of the Bible when clearly it doesnt which just goes to show different times or communities in the Scrptures actually had varying views or practises re such teachings. So those absolutely universal teachings of God in fact allowed of exceptions and were merely changeable man made applications of more abstract principles that were of God.
The Church regularly changes literal Scrptural teachings over time. Usury for example. Those who believe in absolute infallibility use various mechanisms to sanitise the problem such as the literal Scriptural meaning is not always the actual meaning (a technique applied inconsistantly to different parts of the bible) or by saying it has to harmonise with other parts of the Bible when clearly it doesnt which just goes to show different times or communities in the Scrptures actually had varying views or practises re such teachings. So those absolutely universal teachings of God in fact allowed of exceptions and were merely changeable man made applications of more abstract principles that were of God.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
D
De_Maria
Guest
D
De_Maria
Guest
Vatican 1 confirms what Jesus said.
D
De_Maria
Guest
D
De_Maria
Guest
A
adf417
Guest
De_Maria’s post 82 where she said “The Catholic Church does that, infallibly” and you replied “No it does not. Infallable? How conceited. God is infallable!” I dont see how your “it” was referring to the pope either.
God is infallible
Jesus is God:+1:
The church is the body of Jesus:+1:
Jesus was real and visable:+1:
Conclusion: The church does speak infallible.
Now if you want to contend the Catholic Church is not the church Jesus begin, the church that cannot fail, then please show which infallible church this would be that MUST still be as people all over the world are looking for it as we speak.
Peace!!!
A
adf417
Guest
Bootsy could you provide what it is that these bible believing churches mighy be teaching wrongly? This seems to be an odd statment for a Christian who’s job it is to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” Mk-16:15. Have you ever actually preached that some of your beliefs/teaching might be wrong to an unbeliver you are trying win over to Christ?
Peace!!!
D
De_Maria
Guest
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, JWs, Mormons, et al. It’s because of human fallibility that the Church needs the gift of infallibility, an established place on earth place where the buck stops.
Last edited:
A
almost2
Guest
Personal belief. Because the keys to the kingdom binding and loose.
Is obvious in the 9 ministry gifts saint Paul describes in 1 cor 12
But religious people believe what they don’t perceive.
Is obvious in the 9 ministry gifts saint Paul describes in 1 cor 12
But religious people believe what they don’t perceive.
S
spina1953
Guest
Black Friar, I don’t disagree if you are saying that about churches in general. However, if that is your opinion concerning the Catholic Church then that is based on sandy ground. it seems to me in most of the non Catholic denominations interpretations seem or appear to be all over the place; that is to say it becomes whatever they want it to say and mean… Private and personal interpretations abound that in reality distort and mislead. This becomes confusing since each make the claim they are being guided by the Holy Spirit, so can each having a different interpretation of the same verse be the correct one?
So to gain some understanding of Scripture one comes to Hermeneutics comprising 1) the Literal sense, the sense which the human author directly intended and which his words convey to the people of his time. 2) sensus Plenior is the deeper meaning intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author. 3) Allegory is figurative speech the author uses to convey a meaning 4) Historical which is understanding of the times in which the author lived and that he intended his listeners to know and understand.
While it is try anyone can pick up the bible and read it, it does not mean one can readily understand all that Scripture contains. This is the main problem with those who believe they can simply read Scripture and understand all of what it sys and means. Since the Bible is broken down into two parts the OT and NT; The OT being made up of various authors over several thousands of years, reflecting many different events problems and solutions of their particular time and place, the modern reader of any particular OT book needs to understand what that author meaning he wanted to convey which is far different from what the modern reader might understand. The NT authors wrote to convey some aspects of what they were teaching and preaching. NT writers were not trying to write everything they taught and preached as St. John the Apostle put it in his Gospel when he said not everything Jesus said and did was written down.
Nothing was further from the minds of the various authors of the various books in the Bible than the idea of composing works which should be collected and formed into one volume and so constitute the Holy Book One can only imagine the various authors of the books in the Bible staring in amazement if they were told that their writings would be tied up together and elevated into position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines to be placed in each person’s hands as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independant of any teaching authority to interpret them.
Since it was the Catholic Church who decided which books were inspired and which ones were not, then it is safe to say that the Catholic Church alone has the right and the authority to decide what Scripture says and means. While one should read Scripture one should rely on the catholic Church teachings and understandings in Scripture instead of relying on ones own fallible thinking.
So to gain some understanding of Scripture one comes to Hermeneutics comprising 1) the Literal sense, the sense which the human author directly intended and which his words convey to the people of his time. 2) sensus Plenior is the deeper meaning intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author. 3) Allegory is figurative speech the author uses to convey a meaning 4) Historical which is understanding of the times in which the author lived and that he intended his listeners to know and understand.
While it is try anyone can pick up the bible and read it, it does not mean one can readily understand all that Scripture contains. This is the main problem with those who believe they can simply read Scripture and understand all of what it sys and means. Since the Bible is broken down into two parts the OT and NT; The OT being made up of various authors over several thousands of years, reflecting many different events problems and solutions of their particular time and place, the modern reader of any particular OT book needs to understand what that author meaning he wanted to convey which is far different from what the modern reader might understand. The NT authors wrote to convey some aspects of what they were teaching and preaching. NT writers were not trying to write everything they taught and preached as St. John the Apostle put it in his Gospel when he said not everything Jesus said and did was written down.
Nothing was further from the minds of the various authors of the various books in the Bible than the idea of composing works which should be collected and formed into one volume and so constitute the Holy Book One can only imagine the various authors of the books in the Bible staring in amazement if they were told that their writings would be tied up together and elevated into position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines to be placed in each person’s hands as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independant of any teaching authority to interpret them.
Since it was the Catholic Church who decided which books were inspired and which ones were not, then it is safe to say that the Catholic Church alone has the right and the authority to decide what Scripture says and means. While one should read Scripture one should rely on the catholic Church teachings and understandings in Scripture instead of relying on ones own fallible thinking.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Bootsy, True neither Paul or the other Apostles called Peter Pope. Pope is the English translation of Papa which the people of Rome called peter and after all who succeeded Peter as Bishop of Rome and of the Church as a whole. Throughout the New Testament Peter is called the leader and acknowledged as such by the Apostles and as well as Jesus Himself. Jesus was the leader and teacher of all of the Apostles, yet, Peter was the leader of the band of people Jesus chose as His Apostles. Jesus gave the keys to Peter first, called Peter the rock in which Jesus’s Church would be built, jesus did not say he was building His Church on all of the Apostles just Peter. So what jesus is doing here is saying in effect that it is to Peter that not only that the foundation of His Church would be built but that he would lead all to Christ through the rest of the Apostles. The Apostles looked to Peter and their leader and and have final authority. If Peter is not the leader after Jesus ascended into heaven then that would mean the Apostles would be leaderless or on the other hand have authority to go their own way contrary to what another Apostle said or did.
it seems to me that Jesus did not want nor intend to have His Apostles go leaderless after He ascended into heaven, which is why he chose Peter to carry one so that all would be of the same mind and understanding of what Jesus taught and preached. Peter would be the anchor that hold all together as one, and those that succeeded peter would hold that same anchor holding all together as one.
I have not seen anywhere in the Gospels where any or all of the Apostles did not look to Peter to be their spokesman. There is nothing that shows that the Apostles themselves ever went against anything Peter said. We know that Paul once contested Peter but what we do not know is why Peter did what he did. To my mind I think Peter was trying to stem problems and tension between converted Jews from Jerusalem and Gentiles which Paul may have failed to see. But I could be wrong about that as we will never know what it was Peter was trying to when Paul confronted him. That being said, Paul did not go against Peter’s authority. Paul was only pointing out what he thought Peter was doing not why Peter was doing. The thing is none of the Apostles questioned Peter’s authority and considered Peter to be the leader of the Whole Church.
it seems to me that Jesus did not want nor intend to have His Apostles go leaderless after He ascended into heaven, which is why he chose Peter to carry one so that all would be of the same mind and understanding of what Jesus taught and preached. Peter would be the anchor that hold all together as one, and those that succeeded peter would hold that same anchor holding all together as one.
I have not seen anywhere in the Gospels where any or all of the Apostles did not look to Peter to be their spokesman. There is nothing that shows that the Apostles themselves ever went against anything Peter said. We know that Paul once contested Peter but what we do not know is why Peter did what he did. To my mind I think Peter was trying to stem problems and tension between converted Jews from Jerusalem and Gentiles which Paul may have failed to see. But I could be wrong about that as we will never know what it was Peter was trying to when Paul confronted him. That being said, Paul did not go against Peter’s authority. Paul was only pointing out what he thought Peter was doing not why Peter was doing. The thing is none of the Apostles questioned Peter’s authority and considered Peter to be the leader of the Whole Church.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
This is baseless reasoning.
Something is not of God because the purveyor brings out his own writings to prove it is.
People accept the truth of a religion on an initial leap of faith. Thats why its called faith not proof.
Likewise for the infallibility that such a religion may or may not say that this God demands of them.
If you cannot see the compelling logic here further rational discussion is not possible.
BTW could you learn to quote properly…
Include the end escape code
[/quote] or put it on a new line if it doesnt work the first time.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
<<MALTA, January 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The bishops of Malta have given the green light to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in their dioceses to receive Communion if they are “at peace with God.”>>
We see that some bishops say yes and others say no. Does this not indicate that the Church is not united on this question?
Last edited:
- Status