R
ralphy
Guest
I did not say that she is not in heaven. My original statement said, “I do not pray for the dead or to the dead”. I only pray to God through Jesus Ralph
- Status
S
SonofMonica
Guest
So… she’s not dead, is she Ralph? If she’s in heaven, she has eternal life, right? Can you answer a direct question?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, Ralphy. We know that Christ is the head of your Church which will not baptize infants and also the head of another Protestant sect that does. Weird, huh? How does that happen if all of you “Bible Christians” are being led by the Spirit as you all claim.
And yes, we all know that Jesus is the head of the Church which includes both those who have already died and entered heaven and those who are still on earth.
However, we also know that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, left Peter in charge of tending and feeding the sheep here on earth.
Peter was responsible for the one flock in Christ’s absence, and Peter’s successors, who are now known by the more recent title “Pope”, still have that responsibility.
Thus, Christ remains with His Church until the end of the age just as He promised.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I believe what it REALLY means…not what YOU think it means.
And here’s why, Ralphy:
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”
Didja ever notice how Protestants try to belittle Peter by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?
Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?
1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that Peter of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Might they have been inspired to practice some humility, also?
I understand that modern day Protestant preachers on TV like to blow their own horns, but this is not what Jesus instructed the Apostles to do:
Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.
For this, our Protestant friends want to berate us for calling Peter the first pope?
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Really? You seem very Catholic in your thinking to me! Is Methodism very close to Catholicism, or is it just you?
You should, the Bible says you should!
2 Machabees 12:46
“46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”
But of course, you don’t accept this book as inspired, which is contrary to the first 1500 years of Church history…
ralphy, do you believe that the soul is immortal?
Once again,
Mark 12:27
“27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.”
St. Peter, like the rest of us, has an immortal soul. He is not truly “dead,” just like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not truly “dead” according to the passage above.
I do understand what you are saying though, but Jesus took care of that too!
Matthew 16:19
“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.”
This brings to mind a passage from Isaiah:
Isaiah 22:22
“22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
This passage sheds light on Matt 16:19 in that it shows that Peters primacy is a successive role. You see, in David’s time, kings appoint a cabinet of ministers for specific tasks to be done in the kingdom [1 Kg 4:1-6; 2 Kg 18:37]. Of these was chosen a prime minister who was elevated to a unique status of authority, second only to the king. This kind of government structure seemed quite common in David’s area [cf. Gen 41:39-43; Esth 3:1-2]. Here, in Is 22:15-25, we see the prime minister’s office being handed down to a successor by the symbolic act of handing on the “key of the house of David.” So while Peter may not be able to guide us himself anymore, his position as Jesus’ “substitute shepherd” has been passed down to people all the way until today.
Zach
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
What do you think of these posts ralphy?
Zach
P.S. I’d like to add to the first post that Jesus and Mary were not sinFUL just as they weren’t sinNERS. They were both born without original sin.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Not one, but two “$64,000 questions”.
So Ralphy, old fella, will you answer? Or will you keep
dancing???
R
ralphy
Guest
The original answer I gave was refering to the fact that I do not pray for, or to the dead. We cannot correspond with people beyond the grave. Ralph
Not one, but two “$64,000 questions”.
So Ralphy, old fella, will you answer? Or will you keep
T
Thing
Guest
You are being purified?, am I right in thinking that when you are purified you are free from sin and your sanctification is complete? Or what state are you in when you are finished being sanctified?
P
paul_c
Guest
Ralph, this is just a dodge. the original question was whether Peter was the leader of the church after Jesus Ascended into heaven. I think I showed definitively that he was.
And yes, Peter died and left the responsibility vested in him to Linus, who in turn left it to Anencletus and then to Clement, continuing on to present Pontiff, Benedict the 16th.
This was done much in the same way that the Apostles replaced Judas with Matthias in Acts 1.
Z
Zooey
Guest
And you know this…How, exactly??
You’re dodging, yean. You’re dodging and dancing and ducking and floating like a butterfly.
But you’re not answering. Not at all. You base your practice on nothing, and then you look to your practice to form your theology. That’s backwards. You have to know what you believe and why you believe it, before you know what your practice should be, or else you’re just making it all up as you go along.
And that way lies
disaster, confusion, and more disaster & confusion.Your argument is “I don;t pray to or for the dead because we cannot correspond with people beyond the grave”, and then that you cannot correspond with people beyond the grave because you “don’t pray for, or to the dead”. Its called a circular argument, yean. And it won’t do.** It won’t do at all**.
Not in this ballpark. People here have been 'round the block, and we know nonsense when it rises up and tries (fruitlessly, but tries) to sting like a bee…
M
Mc_Sweeney
Guest
Ralph,
Why don’t you stop all this presenting yourself as being who you are not. You do not have the knowledge and wisdom that the Lord has given to his Church and that He has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I agree, you appear to be very selective about what you choose to believe. Some humility would not go amiss either.
If you are serious, please pray to the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writing of the Holy Bible, and who is best placed to answer your queries and who will lead you to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church if you are in earnest about pursuing Truth. One gets the impression this is all a big game with you.
God bless.
C
ConfusedTim
Guest
Ralphy you know the truth and its not what you have written
Listen to your heart.
God bless
Listen to your heart.
God bless
B
brb2
Guest
Ralphy …
Do you understand the above, & now see why your ideas are wrong and the Church has the only Valid explanation ?
P
paul_c
Guest
.
Ralphy,
you have reached the point where you need to decide what you really believe. If you believe the Bible, you need to believe that Jesus set up a church to teach the faith and that he set up Peter to lead that church. Its all there in black and white. And if you choose to believe that way, you will need to return to your Catholic roots.
However, you can also choose to believe what others have said the Bible says. They are the one’s that deny Christ’s true church. Ironically, they also try to say that the Catholic Church denies the Bible, even though it is historically obvious that the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, created the Bible as a teaching tool to carry out its mission.
And in the end, on judgment day, you will be asked why you choose the path you chose. What will be your answer? (or will you simply be reduced to silence?)
R
ralphy
Guest
By the way,in Matt: 7:24,Jesus is saying “therefore whoever heareth these sayings of MINE, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock”. Jesus is refering to Himself and His word, for He says, “sayings of Mine”. There is no reference here to Peter, Jesus is the Rock we build on. Ralph
R
ralphy
Guest
My answer will be, “lord I have follow your word that you have left for me, I have recieved Jesus as my Savior and I am covered by His blood”. Then He will say to me, enter into My rest. Ralph
R
ralphy
Guest
You say you would like to add that Jesus and Mary were both born without original sin, but you cannot, for you can only show that Jesus was born without sin, unless you can show me where Mary was also born without sin. Ralph
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Did you completely skip over all of Randy’s post?! You can see that both Jesus and Peter are the rock. You just keep ignoring the Bible when it doesn’t fit your little view of things don’t you?
Matthew 16:18
“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.”
There is no way to get around it ralphy, not the Greek, not the sentence structure, not anything. You can’t get around the fact that Peter means rock. Your problem is thinking that it has to be one or the other, which it doesn’t. It’s both of them ralphy, it seems like you haven’t even read half of the posts on here.
- Status