G
Ghosty
Guest
yet…
You came here to call us heretics, and our views “wild assumptions”? Please, examine your conscience and intent.
- Status
T
TNT
Guest
**A little anecdotal medicine for our Churches of Christ Michael777:`
**Writing about his experience as a Catholic, Leonard Klein said that one of the things he had found most satisfying was the sense of freedom Catholicism engendered. This was, to be sure, “quite the opposite of what many would expect.” “How can this be, the Protestant polemicist might ask? How can one speak of a greater freedom under the burden of Roman obedience? The answer is simple - Catholics. . . . know that it is not all up to them … . . .
Toward the end of my time as a Lutheran pastor I used to protest that we were all reduced to being gurus. I tried to be authentically Lutheran, but who was to say that I was and the liberal feminist or the church-growth erstaz Evangelical down the street wasn’t just as Lutheran as I… **By contrast a Catholic priest or lay person can speak of what the Church teaches or permits, and that is freedom.
** **It should as no surprise to anyone who understands that our true freedom lies in obedience, not the quivering obsequiousness imagined by post-Enlightenment people but the liberating obedience of faith.”
**
It is a wonderful thing when a non-Catholic discovers the beauty of the Catholic faith and enters into this newfound freedom of obedience, rather than the slavery of a self-proclaimed infallibility
so common among many today. I wish you a Blessed Easter.
**Writing about his experience as a Catholic, Leonard Klein said that one of the things he had found most satisfying was the sense of freedom Catholicism engendered. This was, to be sure, “quite the opposite of what many would expect.” “How can this be, the Protestant polemicist might ask? How can one speak of a greater freedom under the burden of Roman obedience? The answer is simple - Catholics. . . . know that it is not all up to them … . . .
Toward the end of my time as a Lutheran pastor I used to protest that we were all reduced to being gurus. I tried to be authentically Lutheran, but who was to say that I was and the liberal feminist or the church-growth erstaz Evangelical down the street wasn’t just as Lutheran as I… **By contrast a Catholic priest or lay person can speak of what the Church teaches or permits, and that is freedom.
** **It should as no surprise to anyone who understands that our true freedom lies in obedience, not the quivering obsequiousness imagined by post-Enlightenment people but the liberating obedience of faith.”
**
It is a wonderful thing when a non-Catholic discovers the beauty of the Catholic faith and enters into this newfound freedom of obedience, rather than the slavery of a self-proclaimed infallibility
so common among many today. I wish you a Blessed Easter.
T
TNT
Guest
Jn 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him:** Feed my sheep**.
So, Michael777 is neither a lamb or a sheep for Peter.
The only thing left is taking over as shepherd…or wolf.
In any case he refuses to be fed by anyone but his own private opinion from a book he does not know the origin.
Gotta love the logic of a prot…rock solid magic mushrooms
So, Michael777 is neither a lamb or a sheep for Peter.
The only thing left is taking over as shepherd…or wolf.
In any case he refuses to be fed by anyone but his own private opinion from a book he does not know the origin.
Gotta love the logic of a prot…rock solid magic mushrooms
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I don’t mean to be unkind, but have you noticed that there are people who come into these debates, so poorly educated that it’s difficult for them to write a coherent paragraph? And when they fail again and again to make their points, and get caught short, they degenerate into spit-spewing name calling?
G
Ghosty
Guest
It’s disheartening to me because I decided to sit down and write a heartfelt review of why Jesus might have chosen Peter, and rather than getting any coherent response, or any response at all for that matter, I see our faith labeled as heretical as the originator of the thread took the chance to stand on his own personal soap box.
I feel like my time and energy has been wasted, and that pearls have been thrown before swine. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but at least state a coherent response.
I feel like my time and energy has been wasted, and that pearls have been thrown before swine. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but at least state a coherent response.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Think of yourself as one of the Three Billygoats Gruff, who chased off a troll.
As for throwing pearls before swine, think of what John Donne said:
“For a man to find a good wyfe is like to grope an eel out of a bag full of serpents. And if he succeed, what hath he but a wet eel by the tayle?”
If you did convince this guy and convert him, what would you have but a wet eel by the tayle?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
M
MariaG
Guest
Hi Michael,
Not that I truly think you will read it, but for those who may read this and not ask, here are some Christians of the Early Church whom the Holy Spirit revealed to them the truth of Peter. You can find it here.
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
You assume that Catholics here do not have a personal relationship with Christ and have no idea what it means to be led by the Holy Spirit. You are quite simply wrong. If you ever choose to actually look into not only Scripture, but how the early church interpreted it, you will see that the heretics are not Catholics.
Scripture tells us to be careful of those who will come along and preach false doctrines. Catholic Christians have been here since the beginning. Protestants came along after. So who is teaching the false doctrine? What did the Bible warn us about? Those who come along. Those who have come along are certainly not Catholic but all Protestant denominations. Try studying history along with Scripture and ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth no matter where that will be. By the way, by history of the Church, I mean 100, 200, 300ad. Here is a good place to start: catholic.com/library.asp
or here newadvent.org/
or even here star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/overview.html
or here ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM
God Bless,
Maria
Not that I truly think you will read it, but for those who may read this and not ask, here are some Christians of the Early Church whom the Holy Spirit revealed to them the truth of Peter. You can find it here.
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
You assume that Catholics here do not have a personal relationship with Christ and have no idea what it means to be led by the Holy Spirit. You are quite simply wrong. If you ever choose to actually look into not only Scripture, but how the early church interpreted it, you will see that the heretics are not Catholics.
Scripture tells us to be careful of those who will come along and preach false doctrines. Catholic Christians have been here since the beginning. Protestants came along after. So who is teaching the false doctrine? What did the Bible warn us about? Those who come along. Those who have come along are certainly not Catholic but all Protestant denominations. Try studying history along with Scripture and ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth no matter where that will be. By the way, by history of the Church, I mean 100, 200, 300ad. Here is a good place to start: catholic.com/library.asp
or here newadvent.org/
or even here star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/overview.html
or here ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM
God Bless,
Maria
J
john654
Guest
Michael777,
Okay, Here is the truth. You are not going to like to hear this. jesus Christ has a big problem. He thinks he is God.
I have a guestion for you, a serious question. Why did Jesus hang the moon in the sky where He did? Please answer.
Why did Jesus, who is God give Peter the keys.
One more question: Why do you question what God says. Do you have the same problem that Jesus has?
John
Okay, Here is the truth. You are not going to like to hear this. jesus Christ has a big problem. He thinks he is God.
I have a guestion for you, a serious question. Why did Jesus hang the moon in the sky where He did? Please answer.
Why did Jesus, who is God give Peter the keys.
One more question: Why do you question what God says. Do you have the same problem that Jesus has?
John
J
john654
Guest
Michael777,
Have ome spiritual guts and answer this question. You just glossed over it in the last post because you have no interest in answering any questions.
John
Have ome spiritual guts and answer this question. You just glossed over it in the last post because you have no interest in answering any questions.
Come on! WHY?
John
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
If it is any consolation I really liked what you wrote.
It was well thought out and well presented
I’m half tempted to cut and paste it for future reference
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m flattered, and feel free! I think this weekend has just been harder on me than it should be, and I’m not sure why. Feeling down, on Easter? What nonsense is that? 
B
bjcros
Guest
Is there biblical evidence that Peter created the Roman church. The main argument for the Pope’s power is that Peter created the church and passed his power down to him. I know that Paul taught in Rome and I think that he is the one to establish the Roman church. So if Paul created the Roman Church rather than Peter, then where does the claim of the Popes power come from?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
First of all, you’re wrong in your interpretation. Peter had his commission from Jesus. He passed it on to his successor. At the time of his martyrdom, Peter was Bishop of Rome, and his chosen successor was Linus.
There is no requirement that Peter be “first” in Rome – only that he BE Peter. Since he WAS in Rome, and serving as Bishop of Rome, his successor ascends to his seat, and the dignity thereof.
A
Augustine
Guest
It may have been lost on the originator of this thread, but I’m sure I wasn’t the only to profit from your write-up.
Thank you for defending the office that Jesus Himself created for us Christians.
T
TNT
Guest
where does the claim of the Popes power come from?
It comes from your Messiah. Not from Rome!
However:
The Church of Rome existed long before Paul ever came there. And this by his own admission:
***Rom ***1:10-15. Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you.11 For I long to see you, … 12 … by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine. 13 … that I have often purposed to come unto you, (and have been hindered hitherto,) … 14 To the Greeks and to the barbarians, …I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are at Rome.
And Again:
Rom 15: 20-25: And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation. (Peter) 22 For which cause also I was hindered very much from coming to you, and have been kept away till now. 23 But now having no more place in these countries, and having a great desire these many years past to come unto you, 24 When I shall begin to take my journey into Spain, I hope that as I pass, I shall see you, and be brought on my way thither by you, …25 But now I shall go to Jerusalem, to minister unto the saints.
And Again:
**Rom 15: 28-29 **: When therefore I shall have accomplished this, and consigned to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain. 29 And I know, that when I come to you, I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.
And Again, the Church of Rome is saluted by every other Church before Paul ever gets there:
Rom 16:16: Salute one another with an holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.
Rom16:19-20: For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. 20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
And where is Peter wriing from? What is the code-word for the center of the Great Pagan empire?: (See Rev Also.)
**1 Peter 5:13 **The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.
From the earliest Christian writings none of which were trying to establish Peter in Rome against some 16th c. protestant:
180ad:
Tertullian: “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
318ad :
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors: “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
There are many references tn the earliest Church writings that Peter was in Rome by 60ad.
See: Peter’s Roman Residency
Now, in any case, Peter was made head of the Apostles long before he was in Rome. So, whether Pete was in Rome would never decide if he was the 1st Pope. The Messiah did that before his Resurrection.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Michael777,
Even Protestant bible scholars, such as FF. Bruce and Bruce Metzger assert that Peter was chief apostle, the chief minister among all the ministers of the NT Church. This, according to the Divine will, was the eccesiastical construct of His NT Church.
What compelling reason do we have that this changed after Peter’s death? Why do you think the Divine will changed after Peter died, such that a single guy ought to no longer be the chief minister in charge of all the other ministers of God, as it was in NT times? What chapter and verse of Scripture shows that the Divine ecclesiastical construct of the NT, having one minister in charge of all the others, was supposed to change after Peter died? Is your Church a NT Church? If so, does it have a chief minister in charge of all others throughout the world, as it did in NT times? If not, why not?
The Catholic Church continues to have ONE GUY as chief minister of all the ministers of the worldwide Church. It seems to me, of all the variant Protestant and Orthodox ecclesiologies, the Catholic Church has a better Biblical basis for its ecclesiology. It is the only one with ONE GUY as chief minister for the Church universal.
Can you give us a biblical reason against this ecclesiology?
Even Protestant bible scholars, such as FF. Bruce and Bruce Metzger assert that Peter was chief apostle, the chief minister among all the ministers of the NT Church. This, according to the Divine will, was the eccesiastical construct of His NT Church.
What compelling reason do we have that this changed after Peter’s death? Why do you think the Divine will changed after Peter died, such that a single guy ought to no longer be the chief minister in charge of all the other ministers of God, as it was in NT times? What chapter and verse of Scripture shows that the Divine ecclesiastical construct of the NT, having one minister in charge of all the others, was supposed to change after Peter died? Is your Church a NT Church? If so, does it have a chief minister in charge of all others throughout the world, as it did in NT times? If not, why not?
The Catholic Church continues to have ONE GUY as chief minister of all the ministers of the worldwide Church. It seems to me, of all the variant Protestant and Orthodox ecclesiologies, the Catholic Church has a better Biblical basis for its ecclesiology. It is the only one with ONE GUY as chief minister for the Church universal.
Can you give us a biblical reason against this ecclesiology?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Sacerdotal unity is the will of God
A non-Catholic recently posed the following difficulty to me…
**Unity of Command … not just a good idea, but biblically established **
Let me tell you why I believe the Bible supports sacerdotal unity, that is, the notion that God selected a single man to be his voice, to be the Vicar of Christ.
As a military guy, I know this priniciple as “unity of command.” Unit cohesion and unity of purpose quickly fails without unity of command, especially in times of battle. And make no mistake, the Church has always been in battle with the forces that would attempt to destroy her.
The Catholic Church more appropriately calls this “sacerdotal unity.” It essentially means that there will be one pastor in charge of the Church. It is not only a good idea for unit cohesion and unity of purpose in times of battle, but this pastoral or sacerdotal unity is precisely how Christ built his Church. Catholics see no biblical reason to presume that Christ’s Church is no longer hierarchically under one pastor as it was in the 1st century.
There are many types within the OT that foreshadow truths expounded within the NT. For example, Paul calls Adam a “type” of Christ. This is called the typological sense of the OT. The Davidic Kingship, for example, is a type of Christ’s Kingship, and the Davidic Kingdom foreshadows the Kingdom of God under the eternal King, Jesus Christ.
Let’s look at some types that give us clues as to how Christ set up his kingdom on earth.
The family is the smallest unit established by God. It is led by one guy, the Father.
The extended family, for example that of Noah, was led by one patriarch, Noah.
The tribe is led by one guy, for example, the tribe of Abraham is led by Abraham.
The nation is led by one guy. A OT example is that of the nation of Israel, led by the one guy, Moses. It is interesting to note that when Korah attempted to rebel against this Divinely established construct, asserting that everyone in the nation was holy and that they ought to be able to go to God withing having to use Moses as mediator, God disagreed. You can read more about his rebellion in Numbers ch. 16.
The kingdom is led by one guy, the King. An OT example is that of King David. Now, let’s take a closer look at this Davidic kingdom. The kindgom had many ministers. Yet, there was just one guy, the one who held the keys of the kingdom who was the chief minister, given the authority to speak on behalf of the king, to be the ONE GUY to lead all the other ministers, the PRIME MINISTER. Again, unity of command is presented as Scriptural in the governance of every unit, from those as small as the family to those as large as the kingdom, to even include the body of ministers for that kindgom, led by one guy, the chief minister.
Are these not OT types for the NT Kingdom? According to Catholicism and even many well-respected Protestant bible scholars, the answer is yes. Jesus placed one guy to be his chief apostle, giving him the ***keys of the kingdom ***and the power to ***bind and loose on earth that which will be bound and loosed in heaven. ***Many Protestant scholars rightly conclude that Peter was the chief apostle of the NT Church. However, they fail to take the next step and draw the necessary conclusion as to how the universal Church ought to be governed–by one chief minister–the successor of Peter.
Protestant bible scholar F. F. Bruce, writes:
A non-Catholic recently posed the following difficulty to me…
Here was my reply…
**Unity of Command … not just a good idea, but biblically established **
Let me tell you why I believe the Bible supports sacerdotal unity, that is, the notion that God selected a single man to be his voice, to be the Vicar of Christ.
As a military guy, I know this priniciple as “unity of command.” Unit cohesion and unity of purpose quickly fails without unity of command, especially in times of battle. And make no mistake, the Church has always been in battle with the forces that would attempt to destroy her.
The Catholic Church more appropriately calls this “sacerdotal unity.” It essentially means that there will be one pastor in charge of the Church. It is not only a good idea for unit cohesion and unity of purpose in times of battle, but this pastoral or sacerdotal unity is precisely how Christ built his Church. Catholics see no biblical reason to presume that Christ’s Church is no longer hierarchically under one pastor as it was in the 1st century.
There are many types within the OT that foreshadow truths expounded within the NT. For example, Paul calls Adam a “type” of Christ. This is called the typological sense of the OT. The Davidic Kingship, for example, is a type of Christ’s Kingship, and the Davidic Kingdom foreshadows the Kingdom of God under the eternal King, Jesus Christ.
Let’s look at some types that give us clues as to how Christ set up his kingdom on earth.
The family is the smallest unit established by God. It is led by one guy, the Father.
The extended family, for example that of Noah, was led by one patriarch, Noah.
The tribe is led by one guy, for example, the tribe of Abraham is led by Abraham.
The nation is led by one guy. A OT example is that of the nation of Israel, led by the one guy, Moses. It is interesting to note that when Korah attempted to rebel against this Divinely established construct, asserting that everyone in the nation was holy and that they ought to be able to go to God withing having to use Moses as mediator, God disagreed. You can read more about his rebellion in Numbers ch. 16.
The kingdom is led by one guy, the King. An OT example is that of King David. Now, let’s take a closer look at this Davidic kingdom. The kindgom had many ministers. Yet, there was just one guy, the one who held the keys of the kingdom who was the chief minister, given the authority to speak on behalf of the king, to be the ONE GUY to lead all the other ministers, the PRIME MINISTER. Again, unity of command is presented as Scriptural in the governance of every unit, from those as small as the family to those as large as the kingdom, to even include the body of ministers for that kindgom, led by one guy, the chief minister.
Are these not OT types for the NT Kingdom? According to Catholicism and even many well-respected Protestant bible scholars, the answer is yes. Jesus placed one guy to be his chief apostle, giving him the ***keys of the kingdom ***and the power to ***bind and loose on earth that which will be bound and loosed in heaven. ***Many Protestant scholars rightly conclude that Peter was the chief apostle of the NT Church. However, they fail to take the next step and draw the necessary conclusion as to how the universal Church ought to be governed–by one chief minister–the successor of Peter.
Protestant bible scholar F. F. Bruce, writes:
to be continued …
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
continued …
***Protestant ***M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” “binding” and “loosing” from Matthew 16:19:
Such champions of orthodoxy as St. Athanasius and the other bishops at the synod of Sardica, writing a letter to the pope, described the See of Peter as the “head” of the Church. Later, the schismatic Greek Church would re-interpret this to mean something other than jurisdictional authority. Yet, the bishops of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon well before such re-interpretations affirmed in a letter to Pope Leo I, that they believe him to be the successor of Peter, given “custody of the vine by the Savior.” They submitted the canons to him for ratification–a clear sign of jurisdicational primacy over the entire Church. Catholics have no reason to conclude this biblical ecclesiastical governance was in any way revised by Christ after Peter’s death.
***Protestant ***M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” “binding” and “loosing” from Matthew 16:19:
So from my study of Scripture and ancient Christianity, Christ did indeed place one guy in charge, his chief apostle or “steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth.” Catholics understand this guy to have been Peter, and Catholics continue in union with the chair of Peter to this day.
Such champions of orthodoxy as St. Athanasius and the other bishops at the synod of Sardica, writing a letter to the pope, described the See of Peter as the “head” of the Church. Later, the schismatic Greek Church would re-interpret this to mean something other than jurisdictional authority. Yet, the bishops of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon well before such re-interpretations affirmed in a letter to Pope Leo I, that they believe him to be the successor of Peter, given “custody of the vine by the Savior.” They submitted the canons to him for ratification–a clear sign of jurisdicational primacy over the entire Church. Catholics have no reason to conclude this biblical ecclesiastical governance was in any way revised by Christ after Peter’s death.
M
mercygate
Guest
Move over. The Cavalry has arrived! Itsjustdave1988: “terrible as an army with banners!” 
Man! how does he do that?
Man! how does he do that?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I know this may be politically incorrect, but I take the position that God is consistent and has common sense.
What works in secular organizations works in the Church. With unity of command, the Church taught a consistent message for 1,500 years (and still teaches that same mesage.)
But when Protestants broke away from that unified command, they managed to create some 33,000 competing and quarreling churches in just the US.
That, alone, ought to be enough to convince anyone that for Christ’s message to be taught consistently across the ages, the Church needs a single, authoritative head.
- Status