why st peter ?

[Tom]

Please excuse me for getting way off topic here.

ahimsaman72:

I enjoy reading books such as Tobit. It is a fascinating story.

Peace…

I do also, there are so many subtle references, like Sarah having been married “7” times, the expulsion of the demon, the curing of blindness, recovery of the treasure… it goes on and on, as you say it’s fascinating. Actually the Deuterocanonicals are among my favorite books of the OT, just so many teachings of Jesus. I believe the abundance of teachings of Jesus, as well as the graphic description of His rejection from the book of Wisdom are compelling reasons for the Jews to disavow the books, especially since they were in question prior to His appearance.
Peace to you also.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom:

Please excuse me for getting way off topic here.
I do also, there are so many subtle references, like Sarah having been married “7” times, the expulsion of the demon, the curing of blindness, recovery of the treasure… it goes on and on, as you say it’s fascinating. Actually the Deuterocanonicals are among my favorite books of the OT, just so many teachings of Jesus. I believe the abundance of teachings of Jesus, as well as the graphic description of His rejection from the book of Wisdom are compelling reasons for the Jews to disavow the books, especially since they were in question prior to His appearance.
Peace to you also.

Huh?

The Deuterocanonical books were all written long before the time of Jesus. They are part of the Old Testament, not the New Testament, which is where we find the teachings of Jesus.

As for being in dispute – at the time of Jesus, the Saducees accepted only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Torah or Pentateuch). Does that mean we should throw out the rest of the Old Testament?

The Septaugent was the most-used version of the Bible during the time of Christ – more Jews used it than any other version. All of the Old Testament quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gosples, except for his last exclamation, are from the Septaugent. And the Septaugent, of course, contained all the Deutrocanonical Books.

The early Church used the Septaugent and accepted it – and some of the Deuterocanonical Books, such as Sirach, were important in the development of the Church’s moral teachings.

 

[SusanL]

ahimsaman72:

Susan,
I respect your gentle spirit and zeal for your faith, however it is a faith which I do not espouse. I have many wonderful Christian family members and friends whom I love very much. But, I must follow my own path in life as you must follow yours.

Peace…

Stay close to G-d, my friend. May he fill you with grace and bring us all to his truth.

Sue

 

[Tom]

vern humphrey:

The Deuterocanonical books were all written long before the time of Jesus. They are part of the Old Testament, not the New Testament, which is where we find the teachings of Jesus.

Thank you Vern, I’m well aware that the Deuterocanonicals were the OT that’s why I said

Tom:

Actually the Deuterocanonicals are among my favorite books of the OT

And yes, you can find many of the teachings of Jesus in the OT, remember the Old is revealed in the New. These books were written during the last few hundred years prior to Jesus, they are a natural bridge to the New Testament.
vern humphrey:

As for being in dispute – at the time of Jesus, the Saducees accepted only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Torah or Pentateuch). Does that mean we should throw out the rest of the Old Testament?

Uh, Vern… maybe you should re-read my posts, I firmly agree the Deuterocanonicals are part of the OT. I’m fully in agreement they should be in the Bible. When you re-read my posts you’ll see I was saying it isn’t hard to conceive the Jews trying to discredit them since they support the fact that Jesus is the messiah.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom:

Uh, Vern… maybe you should re-read my posts, I firmly agree the Deuterocanonicals are part of the OT. I’m fully in agreement they should be in the Bible. When you re-read my posts you’ll see I was saying it isn’t hard to conceive the Jews trying to discredit them since they support the fact that Jesus is the messiah.

That isn’t, in my opinion, a tenable theory – the parts they accept are just as prophetic of Jesus.

And, while there are foreshadowings in the Old Testament, there are no “teachings” of Jesus until the New Testament. Christ came once. The Second Coming will herald the end of the world.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Tom:

Please excuse me for getting way off topic here.
I do also, there are so many subtle references, like Sarah having been married “7” times, the expulsion of the demon, the curing of blindness, recovery of the treasure… it goes on and on, as you say it’s fascinating. Actually the Deuterocanonicals are among my favorite books of the OT, just so many teachings of Jesus. I believe the abundance of teachings of Jesus, as well as the graphic description of His rejection from the book of Wisdom are compelling reasons for the Jews to disavow the books, especially since they were in question prior to His appearance.
Peace to you also.

I always thought it was interesting that Tobit fed the dragon a poisonous meal - isn’t that correct? It’s been a while since I’ve read it.
G-dspeed friend.

 

[ahimsaman72]

SusanL:

Stay close to G-d, my friend. May he fill you with grace and bring us all to his truth.

Sue

My friend, May the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob make his face always shine upon you. May He bring you peace and joy the rest of your days. Praise to HaShem! He is the righteous Judge.

Shalom…

 

[SusanL]

ahimsaman72:

My friend, May the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob make his face always shine upon you. May He bring you peace and joy the rest of your days. Praise to HaShem! He is the righteous Judge.

Shalom…

Thank you.

Shalom.

Sue

 

[Mickey]

Hello Ahimsaman,

I would be interested to hear your opinion regarding the information set forth on the following website:

kensmen.com/catholic/jc2.html

 

[bjcros]

DianJo:

As I understood it, you questioned why the Pope has the authority he has. The Pope has “ultimate” authority BECAUSE of the OFFICE he holds. Ultimate authority extends to his teaching on matters of faith and morals although his thoughts on many subjects are thought to carry much weight because of his “holiness” (for lack of a better term) or better, his devotion to God, his years of theologic study, and his scholarly mind and true heart demonstrated by his actions as Pope. We see him as a true role model and someone to emulate.

This ultimate authority has been held from very early in the church as evidenced in the early church writings. Sorry, I’m at work and don’t have access to these. Maybe someone else can post a few for you. Augustine was one who deferred to the Church / Pope and his position and authority.

You abviously hold to an authority - Calvin. You believe what he taught. What’s the difference? You believe in his principles. We choose to hold to the established teachings of the Apostles and those teachings have been handed down from them and from Peter - the first Pope - to the one who holds his office now and the other bishops who succeed the other Apostles. I guess I just don’t see that you should have a problem with this since you hold to Calvin’s authority (however erroneously perceived). Why would you have more of a problem with the Pope’s authority than Calvin’s. The Pope’s authority was commissioned by God Himself, Calvin’s was not. The principles taught by Calvin were never taught by Jesus or the Apostles or the early church fathers. Why would you hold to those teachings and not the ones taught directly by Jesus and the Apostles?

Are you just rejecting the Pope’s authority outright because you just don’t think he ought to have it? As I stated in a previous post, he has the authority because of the office he holds - that of Peter.

I hold Calvin’s teachings of predestination. I haven’t studied anything else and don’t know where we agree or disagree other than that. I don’t just accept what he says just because he is Calvin. Which the Catholic church does for the Pope. I respect the Pope as a great theologian just as I respect any other teacher. He probably is correct on a great many things but I hold that he also can be wrong. All I am saying is that anyone shouldn’t just accept what someone says for any reason. Whether he is the Pope or Billy Graham or C.S. Lewis. Those are great theologians and teachers but they don’t hold ultimate authority for all believers.

 

[bjcros]

Shiann:

First bolded question:

YES via the “binding” part of the scripture passage. The church is BOUND to the decisions of the apostles. They (bishops) chose the next pope- therefore the keys pass via the authority given to ALL the appostles to bind and loosen in the name of the Church.

Second bolded question:

We don’t need new revelations. Jesus stated His intent clearly right here! God bestowed Peter with the charism of infallible teaching via the Holy Spirit. (“flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father…”) And in addition made sure this could be passed down in perpetuity via the leaders of the church (“whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”)

The bounded part was said to Peter. If Christ said the bounded part to the apostles then the Pope doesn’t have sole authority. And all of the apostles held the same authority. B/c the church was bounded by Peter’s decision then you must prove that Peter choose the next Pope for the argument to continue to flow. it has been said by others that the Pope after Peter was not choosen by Peter, but by the apostles. The Pope doesn’t have a claim to sole authority in all of Christendom, because if the church is bounded to the apostles as you say, then the apostles share authority.

 

[MariaG]

bjcros,
Part of the problem with your reasoning, things like Peter had to have chosen the next pope, (all popes into eternity?) is that Peter is not the ultimate head of the Church. Christ is. The Holy Spirit is leading and guiding the church. But there is also a visible head of the church. That is the Pope.
You have not addressed very specific interpretation of the **keys **being given only to Peter. Keys = Authority.

if the church is bounded to the apostles as you say, then the apostles share authority.

Then at the very least, you need to convert to the Orthodox church.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[bjcros]

bjcros,
Part of the problem with your reasoning, things like Peter had to have chosen the next pope, (all popes into eternity?) is that Peter is not the ultimate head of the Church. Christ is. The Holy Spirit is leading and guiding the church. But there is also a visible head of the church. That is the Pope.
You have not addressed very specific interpretation of the **keys **being given only to Peter. Keys = Authority.

Then at the very least, you need to convert to the Orthodox church.

God Bless,
Maria

I know Christ is the head and is has ultimate authority. I believe the same. I’m not looking to convert. What do you mean by the Orthoidox Chruch?(Is it the Catholic Church?). I do believe the apostles share authority. but I also believe that with the Holy Spirit in me I have the same authority for my beliefs as the Pope claims to have except that my beliefs don’t bind all of the Church as Catholics see the Pope’s views. and I don’t recognize the Pope’s ultimate authority, because many of the logical implications of things that the Catholic Church and Pope hold to appear to lead to heresy to me.

 

[MariaG]

bjcros

I know Christ is the head and is has ultimate authority. I believe the same. I’m not looking to convert. What do you mean by the Orthoidox Chruch?(Is it the Catholic Church?).

The Orthodox split from the Catholic Church around 1000ad. They do not hold to the primacy of the Pope. I am not trying to convert you. I am just presenting the teachings of Christ, the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I do believe the apostles share authority.

The Orthodox believe all the apostles shared authority without any being the leader. But they also believe that the shared authority has been passed down to the bishops of today.

but I also believe that with the Holy Spirit in me I have the same authority for my beliefs as the Pope claims to have except that my beliefs don’t bind all of the Church as Catholics see the Pope’s views.

So what about my friend who believes the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of the Mormon Church to her? Did the Holy Spirit reveal that to her?

Calvin’s beliefs are different from Luther’s. Wesley’s different from Calvin. What you have ended up with is everyone is their *own *pope. But the Bible tells us to watch out for those who will come along teaching false doctrines. Hold fast to that which has been taught to you whether by word or epistle.

Have you “held fast” or have you, through no fault of your own, been taught a doctrine that has “come along”.

and I don’t recognize the Pope’s ultimate authority, because many of the logical implications of things that the Catholic Church and Pope hold to appear to lead to heresy to me.

Start a thread on one at a time. Until specifics, which need their own thread, are discussed I cannot know what you mean.

I can only say that there is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that contradicts the Bible.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

p.s.

You still did not say what Christ’s words to Peter mean. Christ gave the keys to Peter and Peter alone. Keys in the Bible as well as history mean someone is “put in charge”. What does it mean if that is wrong.

God Bless,

Maria

 

[MariaG]

pps
bjcros,
You say you are here because you are trying to understand your co-worker/boss?

Please understand, a person can be a cultural Catholic or a fallen away Catholic and not adhere to the official teachings of the Catholic Church and may still call themselves Catholic.

What kind of person do you think you are dealing with? What are some of the things they have said that you are trying to understand?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[bjcros]

MariaG:

p.s.

You still did not say what Christ’s words to Peter mean. Christ gave the keys to Peter and Peter alone. Keys in the Bible as well as history mean someone is “put in charge”. What does it mean if that is wrong.

God Bless,

Maria

Yes, Christ did give the keys to Peter and Peter alone. Christ put Peter in charge. You didn’t say that Christ didn’t give the keys to the position of peter would fill(the bishop of Rome). I said that in an earlier post. I was quickly told I was wrong but still don’t understand. The reason I said that apostles shared authority is in response to because that is the logical implication of that statement.

Shiann:

YES via the “binding” part of the scripture passage. The church is BOUND to the decisions of the apostles. They (bishops) chose the next pope- therefore the keys pass via the authority given to ALL the appostles to bind and loosen in the name of the Church.

I understand what your saying. I didn’t meant that there are many Popes or anything like that. I wanted it to mean that the Pope isn’t the final authority. Or that the Pope doesn’t have ultimate authority.

 

[bjcros]

MariaG:

pps
bjcros,
You say you are here because you are trying to understand your co-worker/boss?

Please understand, a person can be a cultural Catholic or a fallen away Catholic and not adhere to the official teachings of the Catholic Church and may still call themselves Catholic.

What kind of person do you think you are dealing with? What are some of the things they have said that you are trying to understand?

God Bless,
Maria

I am trying to understand because of my teacher. He is not good at explaining his faith or defending it. I don’t think that he is at odds with what the Catholic Church says, because the things that I have problems with are also taught in Catholic doctrine. The main one is whether Mary was sinless or not. The Catholic Church from what I can see is very clear. The implications of that statement seem to me to lead to incorrect views. I also don’t see the logic behind Catholics prayer towards Mary. I don’t agree with some of the sacraments.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bjcros:

Yes, Christ did give the keys to Peter and Peter alone. Christ put Peter in charge. You didn’t say that Christ didn’t give the keys to the position of peter would fill(the bishop of Rome). I said that in an earlier post. I was quickly told I was wrong but still don’t understand. The reason I said that apostles shared authority is in response to because that is the logical implication of that statement.
.

If one says the Pope is not the Head of the Church on Earth, there are three arguments he must overcome:

1. The early Christians treated the Bishop of Rome as the Head of the Church on Earth. The Corinthians obeyed Clement, for example, at a time when at least one Apostle still survived.
2. The Bishops – whom you admit shared the authority – accept the Pope as Head of the Church on Earth.
3. The Papacy works. The Catholic Church has taught a consistent message for almost 2,000 years, whereas Protestantism in a quarter of that time has fragmented again and again.

These arguments are too strong to overcome with statements that start out "It seems to me . . . "

 

[MariaG]

posted by bjcros
Yes, Christ did give the keys to Peter and Peter alone. Christ put Peter in charge. You didn’t say that Christ didn’t give the keys to the position of peter would fill(the bishop of Rome). I said that in an earlier post. I was quickly told I was wrong but still don’t understand

I think you were told you were wrong because you were trying to say, (or it sounded like you were saying) that Peter was given the keys more from a geographical place ie, the bishop of ROME. The keys were given to Peter who settled in Rome. But Peter could have gone anywhere and still had the keys no matter where he was. The authority was given to a person, not a place.

The reason I said that apostles shared authority is in response to because that is the logical implication of that statement.

How so? Keys were always given to one person to be in charge. Not a group of people. One set of keys, one person in charge.

The main one is whether Mary was sinless or not. The Catholic Church from what I can see is very clear. The implications of that statement seem to me to lead to incorrect views. I also don’t see the logic behind Catholics prayer towards Mary. I don’t agree with some of the sacraments.

Start a new thread on Mary or look at some of the old ones. There already have been many threads on it. But a new one is surely always in the making. Please, start a new thread. I was going to answer, but it would completely throw off the topic of this thread.

As to the Sacraments, which ones don’t you agree with? I can cite Scripture for many of them. Start a new thread!!! I and others here like nothing else but to explain the teachings of the CAtholic Church!

God Bless,
Maria